


AA\ 














(9/6 




<\ lb 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE 
LINE OF THE ARMY 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
ON 

DRAFT OF SECTIONS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION 

BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR AD INTERIM TO THE 

CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY 

AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES SENATE 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Military Affairs 



7f 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1916 



t^$A 



^ 



\* 



COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS. 

GEO. E. CHAMBERLAIN, Oregon, Chairman. 
GILBERT M. HITCHCOCK, Nebraska. ROBERT F. BROUSSARD, Louisiana. 

LUKE LEA, Tennessee. HENRY A. DU PONT, Delaware. 

DUNCAN U. FLETCHER, Florida. FRANCIS E. WARREN, AVyoming. 

HENRY L. MYERS, Montana. THOMAS B. CATRON, New Mexico. 

CHARLES S. THOMAS, Colorado. JAMES H. BRADY, Idaho. 

JAMES P. CLARKE, Arkansas. NATHAN GOFF, West Virginia. 

MORRIS SHEPPARD, Texas. LE BARON B. COLT, Rhode Island. 

J. <\ W. BECKHAM, Kentucky. JOHN W. WEEKS, Massachusetts. 

Caralyn B. Shelton, Clerk. 

H. Grant, Assistant Clerk. 

Edward J. Hickey, Assistant Clerk. 



D. of D. 
JUN 6 1916 



\ 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY, 



MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1916. 



United States Senate, 
Committee on Military Affairs, 

Washington, D. 0. 

The committee met pursuant to the call of the chairman at 2.30 
o'clock p. m., Senator Geo. E. Chamberlain (chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, we have so far re- 
laxed the rule that was heretofore adopted by the committee in refer- 
ence to the calling of other witnesses before the committee to have 
with us a number of officers to testify in reference to the recom- 
mendation of- the Secretary of War ad interim, Gen. Scott, for the 
enactment of a section of the Army reorganization bill equalizing 
promotions in the line of the Army and adjustment of rank in grade, 
which is as follows: 

EQUALIZING PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY AND ADJUSTMENT OP RANK IN 

GRADE. 

Sec. A. In each grade below that of brigadier general, in the land forces in 
the service of the United States, an officer's rank and precedence and, in case 
of a line officer, his eligibility to command, shall be determined by the length of 
his continuous service as a commissioned officer in the military service of the United 
States; Provided, That in the case of any officer who now occupies, or who may here- 
after occupy, an anomalous position in the lineal list of his arm which does not cor- 
respond to the length of his continuous commissioned service, a date of precedence 
shall be assigned by the President of the United States from which shall be calcu- 
lated the length of his constructive continuous commissioned service. The date so 
assigned shall be as nearly coincident with the actual date of commencement of 
his continuous commissioned sendee as may be consistent with his anomalous posi- 
tion in lineal rank in his own arm, corps, or department; Provided further, That 
nothing in this act shall change the present arrangement of officers in the lineal list 
of their respective arms. 

Sec B. That whenever any part of the Cavalry, Field Artillery, Coast Artillery, 
and Infantry is increased or the number of officers in any of these branches is increased, 
the original vacancies above the grade of second lieutenant due to the increase shall 
be filled from the next lower grade in the four branches, the number of officers pro- 
moted from each branch to be proportional to the number of officers of that grade in 
the four branches as nearly as may be practicable; Provided, That the order of pro- 
motion in any branch shall be in the order of the lineal list of that branch ; Provided 
further. That, so far as practicable, officers shall be promoted in their own branch; 
Provided further. That when any officer is nominated for promotion into any branch 
other than his own he may waive such promotion, and in this case the vacancy shall 
pass consecutively to the officer next below him in the lineal list of his own branch ; 
And provided also. That whenever any officer is promoted to another branch under 



4 EQUALIZATION OF PBOMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

the provisions of this section his position on the lineal list of that branch shall be 
fixed by his position on the relative list of the Army, as provided in section A of 
this act. 

Sec. C. That so much of the act of Congress approved March third, nineteen hun- 
dred and eleven, as relates to officers detached from their proper commands for duty 
with the Organized Militia, or for other duty, the usual period of which exceeds one 
year, is hereby extended so as to apply equally in all respects to the detachment 

and the filling of vacancies caused by the detachment of officers in addition to 

those provided for by said act. The detached officers provided by this section, 
including the two hundred additional officers authorized by the act approved March 
third, nineteen hundred and eleven, shall constitute what is known as the Detached 
Officers' List, and shall consist of officers in the grades of first lieutenant to colonel 
in the proportion of commissioned grades taking the Army at large. All details to 
fill both original and subsequent vacancies in the Detached Officers' List, as these 
occur from time to time, shall hereafter be made from the Infantry, Cavalry, Field 
Artillery, and Coast Artillery Corps in each grade, from that branch wherein the 
senior officer of the next lower grade has the longest continuous commissioned service 
on the date of the occurrence of such vacancy; Provided. That should there be two 
or more branches with senior officers of the same commissioned service, the officer 
so designated shall be from that branch having the senior officer on the relative list 
of the next lower grade; Provided further . That the President may, in his discretion, 
fill any vacancy on the Detached Officers' List from any branch of the line whenever 
in his opinion the duties to be performed by the officers detailed thereto pertain 
exclusively to that branch; And provided further , That no officer shall be promoted 
under the provisions of this act before another of the same branch of the service who 
shall be senior to him in his grade, except as provided in section B. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. HENRY P. McCAIN, THE ADJUTANT 
GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY. 

The Chairman. Gen. McCain, referring to this communication 
from Gen. Scott, under date of February 25, inclosing for the con- 
sideration of this committee a form of resolution equalizing promo- 
tions in the line of the Army and adjustment of line of grade, will you 
please state to the committee in what respect that changes the present 
law governing promotions, and further than that, how promotions 
will be made in future if this provision is adopted 1 

Gen. McCain. Mr. Chairman, I read this a little while ago for the 
first time. It was mailed from my office, but I had never examined 
it — never studied it. It is well known that the question of promo- 
tions in the Army is the most complicated thing we have to deal 
with, and nobody ever knows how it is going to come out until he 
actually takes a case and works it out, and an opinion expressed 
offhand should be received with a great deal of paution. 

As it stands now, eligibility to promotion is based on seniority, and 
seniority has nothing to do with length of commissioned service, 
necessarily. Under this provision, strictly speaking, I should say 
a lieutenant colonel might command a colonel. The assigning of con- 
structive dates of rank is going to be difficult. Officers lose rank by 
reason of court-martial, by reason of failure to pass the examinations, 
and under the act of February 2, 1901, there are a great many offi- 
cers who occupy a very anomalous position. Some with very littl e 
commissioned service rank up pretty high, while others with consi< i- 
erable commissioned service in the volunteers and regulars rank lov ,-. 
That, of course, we can adjust in a way by giving this constructn e 
date of rank. 

The Chairman. Under this proposed resolution? 

Gen. McCain. Yes. They can all be given a constructive date ol * 
rank. It can be made to conform pretty nearly to the way they are 
now. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 5 

The Chairman. What do you think of the policy of changing 
the present rule and conforming it to the resolution that we are now 
discussing ? 

Gen. McCain. I do not think it is a good idea. 

The Chairman. Why? 

Gen. McCain. While it would be desirable that officers should rank 
according to length of commissioned service, as a matter of fact they 
do not now. Whatever maybe done in the future is another thing; 
but to take it now and say they must rank according to length of com- 
missioned service, in my opinion, is not desirable. 

The Chairman. What was your branch of the service ? 

Gen. McCain. Infantry. 

The Chairman. Under the rule as it is now promotion is much more 
rapid in some branches of the service than in others. 

Gen. McCain. It is. 

The Chairman. The Cavalry is slow. The Artillery is more rapid, 
is it not ? 

Gen. McCain. Yes. Those things, Mr. Chairman, change from time 
to time. The Artillery is fast now. It had been slow before. It 
depends upon changes in the law. 

The Chairman. What caused that change ? 

Gen. McCain. They had an increase. The law increased the Coast 
Artillery very materially and sent them up. Nearly every case of that 
kind has been due to some enactment of law, though not always. 

The Chairman. It is more rapid in the Coast Artillery than in the 
Cavalry, for instance ? 

Gen. McCain. I say, there have been more increases in the Coast 
Artillery in recent years. 

The Chairman. More rapid than in the Infantry? 

Gen. McCain. Yes. 

Senator du Pont. Has not the percentage of Cavalry officers ap- 
pointed to be general officers been greater than that of the other 
arms, within the last 12 or 15 years? 

Gen. McCain. My recollection is that they have had more, but the 
last Secretary of War has pretty nearly equalized that. They all 
have about their proportion now, but I can not say from memory 
just which has the greater percentage. 

The Chairman. Below what grade? 

Gen. McCain. Among the general officers. 

Senator du Pont. Yes. 

Gen. McCain. General officers who have been appointed from the 
different arms of the service; that is, excluding those who were ap- 
pointed from staff positions. 

As to the proviso on the second page, " Provided further, That noth- 
ing in this act shall change the present arrangement of officers in the 
lineal list of their respective arms," I do not know of any reason why 
that should not be all right, except that we do know that you would 
have to figure it out. You would have to line them all up and see 
how it would affect the lineal list. The lineal list and relative list 
frequently conflict, and until the arrangement is actually made you 
never know just what friction you are going to have. 

Senator Warren. Approximately that would provide for taking- 
more officers from the Cavalry, which is behind, into this detached 
service, or this reserve of officers, would it not? 



6 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

Gen. McCain. Yes. 

Senator Warren. I understand that they are behind, and next 
comes the Infantry. Of course, the Artillery, hoth field and coast, 
on account of the additions that we have made lately, have forged 
ahead, although formerly the Artillery was hehind all hranches of 
the Army. 

Gen. McCain. The Cavalry is behind all of them as to certain 
grades now. 

Senator Warren. How is the Infantry? Is that behind on an 
average, or if the other was equalized, would that be about right as 
it stands ? 

Gen. McCain. The Infantry ? 

Senator Warren. Yes. 

Gen. McCain. The Infantry is behind the Field Artillery and the 
Coast Artillery, but it is ahead of the Cavalry. 

Senator Warren. Then if we adopted the proposed provisions it 
would cause very large drafts on the Cavalry and the Infantry for 
this reserve of detached officers ? 

Gen. McCain. Yes. 

Senator Warren. In order to follow out the law. 

Gen. McCain. To equalize promotions. 

Senator Warren. Do you think it would go so far in that line as 
to give you a body in detached service, or reserve service, of those 
two kinds pretty nearly ? 

Gen. McCain. That would not be all, but they would have a large 
proportion of those kinds. The Cavalry would have a very much 
larger percentage of officers on detached service than any other arm, 
on these detached lists, as it stands now, then would come the Infantry, 
and the others in their order. 

Senator Warren. And it would take, as you say, very close figuring 
to find just how far it would go ? 

Gen. McCain. You can not do it, in my experience, until you do 
figure it out and line them up. 

Senator Warren. But approximately you think there would not 
be altogether Infantry and Cavalry? 

Gen. McCain. No. I made some figures — not bearing on this par- 
ticular question here — along those lines, and by using up all the 
detached officers, the list as proposed in some of the bills, 786, and 
assigning them to the several grades so as to come as near equalizing 
promotions as possible, it gave us some peculiar results, but there was 
not anybody from the Field Artillery, as I remember now, put on the 
detached list. 

Senator Warren. If the bill went through, if one arm were left 
entirely out of that service, that would be apt to cause some friction, 
would it not ? 

Gen. McCain. Oh, yes; that was one of the bills that was proposed 
that would nearly equalize promotions the date that the bill was 
passed, and thereafter, the day after it was passed, all inequalities 
would begin to generate again. That would not relieve it by arbi- 
trarily putting these extra officers into an arm to equalize promotions. 
As I say, it would equalize it on the day of the passage of the act, and 
then it would begin to get unequal again. 

Senator Warren. Taking another view of it, suppose we undertake 
to pass a bill with a certain amount of Cavalry, Infantry, Field 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OE THE ARMY. 7 

Artillery, and Coast Artillery. In all the bills so far there are in- 
equalities. Suppose when we get into the final consideration of both 
Houses the Senate should be compelled to take the view of the House 
and add nothing to the Cavalry. Then they would be still further 
behind ? 

Gen. McCain. That would depend on the provisions of the bill. 

Senator Warren. Unless the bill provided something which would 
be accentuated ? 

Gen. McCain. Which would be exaggerated, yes. 

Senator Warren. Mr. Chairman, there is one question that I 
would like to have asked. I have not read that very well, but it 
struck me that with all these provisions for examination perhaps 
there should be a little more in the way of the examination of these 
officers that are changed from one place to another, in the first place, 
before they are accredited and go, or after they have served a year, to 
see whether they are incompetent in the arm they are sent to ? 

The Chairman. An examination? 

Senator Warren. Yes; that is a thing to be considered. I was 
wondering whether you cared to take that up while we are con- 
sidering this. 

The Chairman. I think you had better ask anything you want 
that pertains to this. 

Gen. McCain. Do I understand you want me to go through this 
proposed draft? 

The Chairman. We wanted your opinion of it, and what effect 
it would have. 

Senator Warren. I am suggesting these matters so that they may 
come up. For instance, I suppose in the detached service we have 
this, as the General says, evened up as of to-day. The question is 
how many men who serve in Cavalry go into Artillery, or how many 
go to Coast Artillery that have served in the Infantry, and so on? 
Hereafter, in order to carry the equilibrium, we shall be called upon 
to send men from any one arm to another, a very desirable thing if 
they were all created equal and all particularly well equipped for that 
service. But somewhere along the line we are going to find men 
very valuable in one service and of little account in another, and 
the question is, and we ought to weigh it, whether there would be 
so few of those as to be the exception and not the rule, or whether 
the rule would be that we should injure the efficiency of the Army 
by having men in one arm to-day and another arm to-morrow. 

Gen. McCain. That is involved in this bill, this provision, that you 
might have to assign an officer of Infantry to Cavalry, or Field 
Artillery to Coast Artillery, or any of them. 

The Chairman. Does not that destroy a man's ability to become 
an expert in any branch of the service ? 

Gen. McCain. In my opinion it does, but there are lots of offi- 
cers who differ with me in that respect. 

Senator Warren. It would be a sort of Elysian condition if we 
could get so that an officer was of equal efficiency in each branch. 
We would have a greater Army. But it seems to me it is rather 
beyond the capacity of the ordinary officer to become equally con- 
versant with all branches as he might be in these details, and I 
wanted to get your opinion of the percentage, if you have any idea, 



8 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OP THE ARMY. 

that we should have to make those violent changes with as we go 
along. 

Gen. McCain. That you can not tell until it is actually carried out. 
The provision here is that if an officer is promoted to an arm other 
than his own, he can waive it, and some other officer takes it, and 
then they go on down until they get an officer who wants to go. 

Senator du Pont. If he wa'ves his promotion, does he lose rank 
in the Army at large ? 

Gen. McCain. I should think so; yes. He is not promoted until 
he gets a chance in his own arm. But it is determined here on his 
length of commissioned service, or his eligibility to command, and 
that would tend to cure that particular evil. 

The Chairman. Do you think any of them would waive ? 

Gen. McCain. I think some of them probably would. I think if he 
did, the other arm would not want him though. 

Senator Warren. Would not the least equipped one be oftentimes 
the most egotistical and the most anxious to get the promotion ? 

Gen. McCain. I think the one who does not want to waive it 

Senator Warren. Is the wrong one to go % 

Gen. McCain. Yes; and the other arm might get the man they 
would rather not have. That, however, is speculation. 

Senator Beckham. The effect of this provision, however, would be 
to put a man in one branch over in command of troops in another 
branch, would it ? 

Gen. McCain. Yes. 

The Chairman. Does it not stand to reason that a man who com- 
mands Infantry for 10 or 15 or 20 years in commissioned service, he is 
a better Infantry officer than if he were transferred into the Artillery 
or any other branch of the service ? 

Gen. McCain. That is my personal opinion. 

Senator du Pont. General, there are a number of officers in the 
Army promoted from the ranks. They have served exclusively in 
one branch of the Army. Would they not be at a great disadvantage 
if they- were arbitrarily transferred to the Coast Artillery, for instance, 
when they had heretofore served as enlisted men in Cavalry % 

Gen. McCain. I do not think that would make so much difference 
in that particular case. 

Senator du Pont. I mean, so far as their duties are concerned. 

Gen. McCain. The particular case you cite is where an examination 
was given enlisted men for commissions. The Cavalry man may get 
in the Infantry, and the infantryman in the Cavalry, and it has never 
been the idea of the War Department that the fact that he served as 
an enlisted man in Infantry or an enlisted man in Cavalry would pre- 
vent his being commissioned in either of the other arms. His educa- 
tion as an officer begins after he gets his commission. Then he 
attends the garrison schools and the service schools, and he acquires 
his ideas of the particular branch of the service from those schools, 
especially from the service schools, and his actual experience in the 
command. It would undoubtedly be advantageous, where you 
appoint an enlisted man of the Cavalry, to commission him in the 
Cavalry, because his experience there does benefit him very mate- 
rially. But the War Department has never found it possible to 
adhere to that rule. 

Senator Fletcher. What service schools do vou refer to ? 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 9 

Gen. McCain. For instance, you take the school at Fort Monroe 
for the Coast Artillery, the mounted service school at Fort Riley. 
Then we have the service schools at Leavenworth, where they teach 
them all, and we have a signal corps school ? 

Senator Warren. And a school at Fort Sill!' 

Gen. McCain. No. This is the regular service school that officers 
go to. 

Senator Fletcher. Do they have a certain time assigned for that? 

Gen. McCain. Yes. 

Senator Fletcher. Are all officers required to do it, or is it 
optional ? 

Gen. McCain. No; that has not been required, because the capac- 
ity has not been sufficient. They want to get an officer who deserves 
to go and he is selected, as far as practicable. The capacity of the 
school has not been sufficient to put all the officers through it, so far. 
They are just examples of service schools. At every post we have 
garrison schools, where the officer is required to complete certain lines 
of study. 

Senator Fletcher. It would seem reasonable that men who have 
made a special study of and commissioned in, for instance, the Coast 
Artillery service, and attended the service school, ought to be con- 
sidered subject to promotion in that particular service, rather than 
to have some man who has served a little longer in some other branch 
put over him, would it not ? 

Gen. McCain. I think so; yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. In all the bills that have been proposed, as you 
know, an increase to the Regular Army is involved, greater or less, 
and also a feature of all those bills is an increase in the number of 
commissioned officers to be used in detached service. 

Gen. McCain. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. The question in my mind is whether the exist- 
ing inequalities could not be largely solved by simply detailing the 
officers on detached service from the branch of the service where 
promotions are slowest. You said something about that just now. 

Gen. McCain. I think that could be done, Senator. That is my 
opinion. 

Senator du Pont. That would wipe out the present inequalities. 

Gen. McCain. It would eventually, yes. It would not do it im- 
mediately, but it would eventually, and when you work it up, you 
could keep it very nearly equalized throughout the service. 

Senator du Pont. Then if that were done, it would not be necessary 
to have this general scheme ? 

Gen. McCain. I do not think so. But I must say again that a 
great many officers, in whose judgment I have every confidence, 
differ with me about that. 

Senator Beckham. There are some who agree with you ? 

Gen. McCain. I do not know how many. I have talked with some 
who do, yes, sir. 

Section C, I think, could be worked out, if we leave out the waiv- 
ing, or letting a man say whether he will go or not as he saw fit, but 
it has gbt to be worked out practically. 

The Chairman. And you think no matter how you work it out 
now, it would be temporary relief, that the same questions of in- 
equality would arise later on ? 



10 EQUALIZATION OF FEOMOTIOX IX THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

Gen. McCain. No. In this provision down below that would work 
it out. It would practically make that permanent. 

Senator Fletcher. That is Section C, you say? 

Gen. McCain. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. I do not understand to what objection is made. 

Gen. McCain. The idea of taking a man from the Infantry and 
putting him into Cavalry, or from the Cavalry and putting him into 
the Field Artillery; if he desires to waive that right to promotion, 
he need not go. That raises an objection, to my mind. 

The Chairman. Have you ever worked out a scheme 1 >. 

Gen. McCain. Yes; I have, Senator. 

The Chairman. There are about as many schemes as there are 
officers in the Army, are there not ? 

Gen. McCain. I did have a scheme that I thought would work it 
out. 

Senator Fletcher. Suppose the General takes this as it is written 
here, and I will ask him if he can suggest a change that would over- 
come the objection which he mentions in the draft as it is written. 

Gen. McCain. I would change that entirely. Senator. I would 
start out on another basis. 

Senator Fletcher. You would change section C? 

Gen. McCain. I would change it entirely, myself. 

Senator Fletcher. Would you let sections A and B stand \ 

Gen. McCain. I would change all of them, but this is worked out 
by the General Staff, as I understand it, and has been approved. I 
never saw it and have not studied it, and I am at a disadvantage in 
commenting on it. It is worked out by the General Staff, and it 
ought to be nearly right. 

The Chairman. Sections 18 and 21 of the tentative plan of Secre- 
tary Garrison, suggested some time ago as to promotions and the 
equalization thereof, in fact were written by you, were they not? 

Gen. McCain. They were suggested by me, but I have changed 
my views somewhat. They are generally that way, but I have 
changed them somewhat since that time. I have a little different 
idea about it. I would be glad to tell you in a general way what it 
is, if you desire to hear it. 

The Chairman. You might do that, and then send us a written 
plan to be printed in this record. 

Gen. McCain. My idea would be to take this detached list and 
make a reservoir of it, and treat them entirely separate from any 
gain that comes from an increase of the service. I would let all va- 
cancies be put on that detached list. I would apportion them to 
the several arms of the service in accordance with their commission 
and personnel in each grade and each arm as authorized by law now, 
previous to the passage of any bill for increase. Thereafter, when- 
ever a vacancy occurs in the detached list, I would give it to that 
arm that has the senior in the grade below the grade in which the 
vacancy occurs. That will settle the detached list, That is the 
general statement. The increase I would let go to the arms as they 
come, and all details that carry with them promotion, other than 
this detached list, would be made under existing law and regulations: 
that is, in proportion to the commissioned personnel in each arm, 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 11 

the authorized commissioned personnel. That would have right at 
the outset this advantage to the Cavalry, or the arm that is not 
increased; they would not get as many officers at the start as the 
other arm, but every vacancy, if any arm did not get up to its proper 
proportion at the outset, would gradually work into it, and eventually, 
after it has finally adjusted itself by using that detached list, it 
would never be very far off in the equalization of promotions. 

Senator du Pont. Do you understand that the provision of law 
which requires officers to serve at least two years with the troops 
after the four years' service on detached duty applies to the officers 
on the detached list ? 

Gen. McCain. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. Just as much as to those with troops? 

Gen. McCain. Yes, sir. 

(The suggested draft referred to is as follows:) 

The accompanying two sections have for their object (1) to carry up promotions 
within the arm in each arm in which an increase is provided for so as to retain each 
officer in the arm in and for which he has been trained; (2) to provide for details 
with the several staff corps and departments proportionately from all arms, such 
officers being required in each corps or department in order that it may be kept in 
touch with the needs and requirements of each arm; (3) to place officers on the list 
of "detached officers in proportion to the numbers in the several grades and arms as 
they now exist, so that any arm in which an increase is made, and which receives a 
greater proportionate number of promotions than the other arms because of such 
increase, shall not secure a still larger proportion of promotions through assignments 
to the list of detached officers in proportion to the strength of the arm as increased; 
(4) to gradually readjust the assignments to the detached list, as officers gain in length 
of service and the inequalities due to the immediate addition to certain arms disap- 
pear, so that the senior officer in the several grades will secure promotion and those 
on the detached list will be apportioned, approximately at least, as are the details 
to the several staff corps and departments, according to the proportion in the four arms 
as they will finally exist. 

This method will not in all instances produce the desired result. For instance, 
a colonel of Cavalry may be removed from the detached list and a colonel of Infantry 
placed thereon so as to promote the senior lieutenant colonels of the four arms; but 
the succeeding promotions in the Infantry may fall to a major, captain, or lieutenant 
who is not the senior. Provision can only be made, therefore, for the promotion of 
one senior officer in each instance. But as the number of officers in the lower grades 
largely exceeds those in the higher grades and a senior officer in at least. one of the 
lower grades will be benefited each time a change is made in one of them, a large 
proportion of the inequalities will gradually cease to exist. It is believed that these 
two sections, if enacted, would do justice to a greater number of officers than any 
other provisions relating to the list of detached officers that have been considered. 

Sec — . All vacancies created or caused by the increase in the commissioned strength 
of the Cavalry, Field Artillery, Coast Artillery Corps, and Infantry, provided for in this 
act, shall be filled by the promotion, in each arm and grade in which such vacancies are 
created or caused, of officers of the next lower grade in that arm in the order of seniority 
and subject to examination as now provided bylaw; and detailsof officers of each grade, 
other than those placed on the list of detached officers created by this act, from the 
four arms of the line herein specified, which create vacancies required by law to be 
filled by promotion, shall be made from each arm in the proportion that the number of 
officers of that grade and arm, at the time of such details, bears to the total number of 
officers of that grade t;hen authorized by law for the four arms combined, exclusive of 
the additional officers authorized by the act of Congress approved March third, nine- 
teen hundred and eleven, and of the officers placed on said list of detached officers. 

Sec. — . The list of detached officers of Cavalry, Field Artillery, Coast Artillery 
Corps, and Infantry authorized by this act shall be limited to nine hundred and eighty- 
six officers, inclusive of the two hundred detached officers authorized by the act of 
Congress approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven, and shall consist of 
officers in the grades of colonel to first lieutenant inclusive. As nearly as practicable 
the number of officers in each grade placed on the said list of detached officers im- 
mediately upon the passage of this act, including the two hundred hereinbefore 



12 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OE THE ARMY. 

specified, shall be in the proportion that the number of officers in that grade now 
authorized by law bears to the entire number of officers now authorized by law for 
the said four arms combined, exclusive of second lieutenants and of the additional 
officers authorized by the act of Congress approved March third, nineteen hundred 
and eleven; and the number of officers of each grade placed on said list from each arm 
shall be in the proportion that the number of officers now authorized by law for that 
grade and arm bears to the whole number of officers now authorized by law for that 
grade in the four arms combined, exclusive of the additional officers authorized by 
the act hereinbefore cited. 

Each vacancy in the line of the Army created or caused by the assignment of an 
officer to the list of detached officers shall be filled by promotion from the next lower 
grade in the arm of the service in which the officer so detached holds a permanent 
commission, according to seniority and subject to examination as now provided by 
law. No officer shall be permitted to remain on said list of detached officers for a pe- 
riod of more than four years at any one time, and, after completion of a term of four 
years thereon, an officer will not be eligible for detached service until he shall have 
served two years with a regiment of the arm of the service to which he belongs. When- 
ever a vacancy shall occur in said list of detached officers, after assignments thereto 
shall have been made as herein provided, by the removal of an officer therefrom or by 
his separation in any way from the active list of the Army, such vacancy shall be filled 
by the detail and assignment to said list of an officer of the same grade in the arm of 
the service to which the officer in the next lower grade belongs who is then the senior 
in rank of the officers of his grade in the four arms specified: Provided, That it' under 
the operation of this section the number of officers returned to any particular arm of 
the service at any time exceeds the number authorized by law in any grade, promotions 
to that grade shall cease until the number has been reduced to that authorized. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. ROBERT E. L. MICHIE, GENERAL 
STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY. 

The Chairman. Col. Michie, we will be pleased to hear from you 
on this proposed equalization plan. 

Col. Michie. I have not had time to prepare a paper especially on 
this subject. I was just notified before I came up, but if you have no 
objection, I would like to read a few extracts from a previous memo- 
randum. 

Col. Michie. (Reading.) 

The 1912 Report on the Organization of the Land Forces of the United States, 
chapter 7, page 46, included the following: 

"The organization of the Army should be determined by strategical, political, and 
economic considerations, with the sole view of serving the public interest. In the 
past, however, questions of relative promotion have largely influenced the result. 
Proper promotion of the officers is essential in any military system and parity of pro- 
motion under similar conditions is necessary if we are to have an effective force. 
Human nature is such that all officers desire their share of promotion. The result 
has been, however, that all these questions of relative promotion have affected the 
proper consideration of all questions of organization. If an effort is made to secure an 
increase deemed necessary in any one arm, officers of the other arms are liable to 
oppose it unless by other increases, perhaps necessary and perhaps not, a parity of 
promotion is received. While, therefore, the question of promotion and rank is one 
that all officers are rightly interested in, it has interfered, and will continue to interfere 
with any scientific and economical reorganization plans. It is therefore considered 
as an absolutely necessary preliminary to any reorganization of the mobile Army to 
place promotion on an equitable basis independent of organization." 

The existing inequality of promotion in the various arms is shown by the following 
table based on the Army List and Directory of November 20, 1915. The table shows 
the junior number in each grade in each arm of the service together with the date 
or original entry into the service. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 13 




Date of origi- 
nal entry into 
service. 



Infantry 

Cavalry 

Field Artillery 
Coast Artillery 

Infantry 

Cavalry 

Field Artillery 
Coast Artillery 

Tnfantry 

Cavalry 

Field Artillery 
Coast Artillery 

Infantry 

Cavalry 

Field Artillery 
Coast Artillery 

Infantry 

Cavalry 

Field Artillery 
Coast Artillery 



JUNIOR COLONELS. 

Hasbrouck, A 

Carleton, Guv 

Berry, L. G.. 

Hunter, A. M 

JUNIOR LIEUTENANT COLONELS. 

Lewis, E. M 

Byram, G. L 

Irwin, G. Le R 

Coe, F. W 

JUNIOR MAJORS. 

Laubach, H. L 

Williams, R. C 

McMaster, R. H 

Patten, H. T 

JUNIOR CAPTAINS. 

Higgins, J. A 

Jacobs, D. H 

Honeycutt, F. W 

Niles,'E. W 

JUNIOR FIRST LIEUTENANTS. 

Baker, L. D 

Williams, S. M 

Thummel, C. B 

H'ines, C 



June 13,1883 
June 11,1881 
July 1,1886 
June 12,1887 



July 1,1886 
June 14,1885 
June 12,1880 
June 11,1892 



June 12,1893 
Oct. 7, 1891 
Apr. 12.1898 
July 9, 1898 



Feb. 2, 1901 

Do. 
June 15,1904 
June 11,1905 



Feb. 14,1908 

Do. 
June 11,1909 
June 15,1910 



From the above it will be seen that in the grade of colonel the Coast Artillery is 
one year ahead of the Field Artillery, six years ahead of the Cavalry, and four years 
ahead of the Infantry. In the grade of lieutenant colonel the Coast Artillery is three 
years ahead of the Field Artillery, seven years ahead of the Cavalry, and six years 
ahead of the Infantry. In the grade of major the Coast Artillery is four months ahead 
of the Field Artillery, seven years ahead of the Cavalry, and five years ahead of the In- 
fantry. In the grade of captain the Coast Artillery is one year ahead of the Field Ar- 
tillery, four years ahead of the Cavalry, and four years ahead of the Infantry. In the 
grade of first lieutenant the Coast Artillery is one year ahead of the Field Artillery and 
two years ahead of the Infantry and Cavalry. These inequalities of grades are due 
to legislative increases in one or more arms that have not been shared by the other arms. 

It has been stated in hearings before the House Military Committee that the Coast 
Artillery was at a disadvantage in the matter of promotion prior to 1907. going back 
to the Civil War, and while it now has a temporary advantage, the operation of the 
natural law, of promotion will correct it in a few years. There was also presented a 
series of charts to show the relative promotion in the Cavalry. Infantry, and Coast 
Artillery from 1882 to 1915, a period of some 34 years. Just why this period of 34 
years is taken is not shown, but it may be stated in this connection that under the act 
approved January 25, 1907, the seven regiments of Artillery as then constituted were 
reorganized into the Coast Artillery and the Field Artillery as now authorized. The 
resulting promotion was given exclusively to officers in the Artillery branch in ad- 
vance of any officers of other branches. This advancement more than made up for 
the period of slower promotion previously experienced. The faster rate of promotion 
has since continued, with the resulting inequalities as now shown on the relative list 
of the Army. 

With reference to the claim that the natural law of promotion will equalize the 
flow during a period of a number of years, of the 834 officers of Coast Artillery whose 
names are given in the November Army List, but 65 were commissioned officers of 
Artillery prior to 1898. Consequently to accept the argument advanced of the natural 
law equalizing promotion for this 65 will unduly advance the remaining 7(;9 officers. 

As a matter of fact, the faster rate of promotion for Cavalry and Infantry prior to 1898 
was due to the faulty organization of the Artillery in the fact that there were two first 
lieutenants to each battery while Cavalry and Infantry companies had only one. 
The Artillery during this period also in general had much better stations, and the 



14 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF TFIE ARMY. 

hardships and casualties due to frontier service and Indian campaigns had an un- 
doubted effect in giving a materially greater flow of promotion in the Cavalry and 
Infantry. 

In any question of equalizing promotion the basis of argument should be how it 
would affect the efficiency of the Army as a whole, and it must be admitted that 
should officers of any branch of the service be continually advanced in rank and com- 
mand through legislative enactment while equally competent officers of longer service 
in other branches are not given a fair share of similar promotion, subject to examination 
as to proper qualifications, discontent and inefficiency must necessarily result there- 
from in the latter branches. 

The following proposed draft of sections, if adopted, will at least greatly tend to 
equalize promotion in constantly correcting the existing arbitrary inequalities, both 
in relative rank and promotion in the several branches of the line of the Army. Such 
a measure can in no sense be called merely a 'promotion scheme," for no additional 
promotion is caused other than that which will in any case go to the line of the Army. 
Relative rank is simply based on length of commissioned service, and promotion to 
some extent made independent of organization and distributed to the branches of the 
line wherein the officers have the longer commissioned service. 

"Sec. A. In each grade below that of brigadier general in the land forces in the 
service of the United States, an officers rank and precedence and, in case of a line 
officer, his eligibility to command shall be determined by the length of his contin- 
uous service as a commissioned officer in the military service of the United States: 
Provided, That in the case of any officer who now occupies, or who may hereafter 
occupy, an anomalous position in the lineal list of his arm which does not correspond 
to the length of his continuous commissioned service, a date of precedence shall be 
assigned by the President of the United States from which shall be calculated the 
length of his constructive continuous commissioned service. The date so assigned 
shall be as nearly coincident with the actual date of commencement of his continuous 
commissioned service as may be consistent with his anomalous position in lineal rank 
in his own arm, corps, or department: Provided further ; That nothing in this act shall 
change the present arrangement of officers in the lineal list of their respective arms. 

"Sec B. That whenever any part of the Cavalry, Field Artillery, Coast Artillery, 
and Infantry is increased or the number of officers in any of these branches is increased 
the original vacancies above the grade of second lieutenant due to the increase shall 
be filled from the next lower grade in the four branches, the number of officers pro- 
moted from each branch to be proportional to the number of officers of that grade in 
the four branches as nearly as may be practicable: Provided, That the order of pro- 
motion in any branch shall be in the order of the lineal list of that branch: Provided 
further, That, so far as practicable, officers shall be promoted in their own branch: 
Provided further, That when any officer is nominated for promotion into any branch 
other than his own he may waive such promotion, and in this case the vacancy shall 
pass consecutively to the officer next below him in the lineal list of his own branch: 
And provided also. That whenever any officer is promoted to another branch under 
the provisions of this section his position on the lineal list of that branch shall be fixed 
by his position on the relative list of the Army, as provided by section A of this act. 

"Sec C. That so much of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1911, as relates to 
officers detached from their proper commands for duty with the Organized Militia, 
or for other duty, the usual period of which exceeds one year, is hereby extended so 
as to apply equally in all respects to the detachment and the filling of the vacancies 
caused by the detachment of . . . officers in addition to those provided for by said act. 
The detached officers provided by this section, including the 200 additional officers 
authorized by the act approved March 3, 1911. shall constitute what is known as the 
detached officers' list and shall consist of officers in the grades of first lieutenant to 
colonel in the proportion of commissioned grades taking the Army at large. All 
details to fill both original and subsequent vacancies in the detached officers' list 
as these occur from time to time shall hereafter be made from the Infantry. Cavalry. 
1 ield Artillery, and Coast Artillery Corps in each grade from that branch wherein 
the senior officer of the next lower grade has the longest continuous commissioned 
service on the date of the occurrence of such vacancy: Provided, That should there be 
two or more branches with senior officers of the same commissioned sendee, the officer 
so designated shall be from that branch having the senior officer on the relative list 
of the next lower grade: Provided further, That the F resident may, in his discretion, 
fill any vacancy on the detached officers' list from any branch of the line whenever 
in his opinion the duties to be performed by the officer detailed thereto pertain 
exclusively to that branch: And provided further, That no officer shall be promoted 
under the provisions of this act before another of the same branch of the service who 
shall be senior to him in his grade except as provided in section B of this act." 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 15 

NEED OF CHIEFS OF CAVALRY, INFANTRY, AND FIELD ARTILLERY. 

It is a fundamental military principle that every military establishment and each of 
its various components should have a military head (chief) superior in rank to all 
under his control, who directly supervises and may be held responsible for its train- 
ing, efficiency of personnel and other corelated matters. All staff corps and depart- 
ments as well as the Coast Artillery now have such a chief. The Cavalry, Infantry, 
and the Field Artillery have not. Correct military principles and consequently mili- 
tary efficiency require' that each of these arms should have such a chief and this chief 
while so serving should have one grade higher rank than any other officer of his arm. 
This chief should be charged with the inspection of his arm' and should supervise its 
training and equipment and all such chiefs should have the same status. If any arm 
be given an advantage over another either in the matter of having a chief or in the 
matter of the official standing of such chief, unequal consideration and treatment, and 
unbalanced military development of these arms will naturally result. For the reasons 
stated, chiefs of Cavalry, Infantry, and Field Artillery should be provided for those 
arms as now authorized by law for the Coast Artillery. During the Civil War when 
American cavalry was being developed along lines that have influenced all nations in 
the use of this arm, it became necessary to establish a bureau of Cavalry at the War 
Department and appoint chiefs of Cavalry of the various large commands. Owing to 
the great expense incident to the mounted service it makes it especially important to 
have a head directly charged with the supervision of its special functions. This both 
for economic reasons as well as those connected with efficiency. 

This is recognized by all important foreign powers as follows: 

Great Britain. — Cavalry is supervised by an officer entitled "Inspector of Cavalry" 
He has the rank of major general. 

Germany. — In the German Army the supervision of the Cavalry is performed by 
the third section of the " General Department of War." The officer at the head of the 
section is called the chief of section (or division). 

France. — Has a bureau of the War Department entitled "D'rection de la Cavalrie." 
The officer at the head of the bureau is called director. 

Austria-Hungary. — The administration of the cavalry is supervised by the third 
division of the War Department. The chief of the division is called director. 

Russia. — Has in one of the divisions of her War Department a section called "General 
Inspection of Cavalry." The officer in charge is called "The Inspector General of 
Cavalry." 

Japan. — The administration of cavalry in Japan falls upon the Cavalry Division, 
a bureau of the War Department. The division is controlled by an inspector general. 

The developments of modern war have made it equally necessary that we should 
have Chiefs of Field Artillery and Infantry. For Field Artillery there are the many 
questions incident to personnel, organization, training, equipment, arm, etc., which 
demand the direct and constant attention of a single head or chief. The same is 
true for Infantry. The Chief of Coast Artillery has stated in his hearings before 
Congress the many duties with which he is charged and has given a thorough and 
complete representation of the many needs of that branch of the Army to put it 
abreast of the proper requirements. That the same thorough and detailed repre- 
sentation of the needs of the Cavalry, Field Artillery, and Infantry have not like- 
wise been presented to you and the House Military Committee is due to the fact 
that there is no chief of those arms in the War Department who may be called on for 
such representation. It is generally admitted that in any final show-down the mobile 
army is the main defense of the country. It is therefore of the utmost importance that 
those branches should be maintained on the highest plane of efficiency possible. 
This will only be possible when these branches of the Army are given exactly the ame 
consideration as to a "chief now authorized by law for the Coast Artillery. 

Col. Richie. Various questions of equalizing promotion from time 
to time have come up. What is known as the single list has been 
advocated by a great many, for example. Take a first lieutenant of 
Infantry who has had a longer service than any lieutenant in the other 
three arms. When he reaches the top and a vacancy occurs he would 
be promoted to that vacancy, regardless of whether he went out of 
the Infantry or not. 

Another scheme of promotion suggested, and which probably 
would be favored by all, is promotion after length of service in a 
grade; that would not take the officer out of an arm. It is my opinion 



16 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE AKMY. 

that would be the best. For instance, a man after so many years would 
be made a colonel, after so many years a lieutenant colonel, after so 
many years a major, and after so many years a captain. We have 
recognized that in the Engineers. After 14 years a man is made a 
captain; in the medical department after three years' service. All 
these questions were considered by the Chief of Staff, and as a mean, 
you might say, between the single list and the various other meas- 
ures, he recommended the following: Taking the first section, A, it 
was stated here a while ago that a lieutenant colonel might command 
a colonel. That would be absolutely impossible, because it dis- 
tinctly states in each grade below that of brigadier general this 
relative rank or prestige obtains. As it is now, suppose several 
bodies of troops meet in the field, a regiment of Artillery, of Field 
Artillery, a regiment of Cavalry, and a regiment of Infantry. A 
man of less service can command a senior. Such a condition is bound 
to work in the long run for inefficiency. If the measure here pro- 
posed is adopted, the senior in length of service would command the 
entire force. The same way in post and garrison, as president of a 
court, the selection of quarters — in those various conditions the offi- 
cer of longest service and good standing would have this precedence 
and higher rank. 

In the next case, section B, it is intended simply where one arm 
is increased — for instance, suppose you increase the Field Artillery to 
20 regiments. Where are they going to get their officers ? In 1907, 
when the Artillery was increased almost three times, the officers who 
were then in the Artillery got the benefit of the promotions fhst; a 
good many officers were transferred from the other arms, but they 
had to go down below, officers who had served less time, and the 
present inequality of promotion is largely due to that legislative 
increase, not to any special efficiency of the officers. Now is the 
time when this question should be definitely settled, and if prac- 
ticable promote officers to the same extent, independent of organi- 
zation. 

If you take section C, the idea there is simply to use what I under- 
stood Gen. McCain to say that he would use, this extra list, to 
equalize promotion. That is, if a vacancy occurred in any grade 
he would promote the officer who was senior in the grade next below. 
It does not change the lineal list, so far as that arm is concerned, 
but it simply promotes a man of longest service from the grade 
below. It may work to the advantage of the Cavalry to-day, of the 
Infantry to-morrow, and the same way for the Artillery in the future. 
It provides a continuing flow of equalization in its operation and 
effect. 

This proviso acts as a check. 

Provided fur t her, That the President may, in his discretion, fill any vacancy on the 
detached officers' list from any branch of the line whenever in his opinion the duties 
to be performed by the officers detailed thereto pertain exclusively to that branch. 

That is, the President would have full power to detail any officer, 
detach him and promote him, if it is to be purely artillery work, or 
cavalry work, etc. As stated by The Adjutant General, it will have 
to be worked out to see its actual effect, but after careful study it is 
believed to be fully capable of being so worked out without doing 
injustice to anyone. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 17 

The Chairman. Do you think that proposed resolution ought to 
he adopted? 

Col. Michie. I do. 

Senator Fletcher. Wherein does it change the present system ? 

Col. Michie. In the present system an officer takes rank according 
to the date of his commission; that is, an officer may have 10 
years' less service than another officer and still rank such officer. 
If they should meet outside, the officer with the senior commission 
or grade would command the forces. This places the officer of 
longer service in command. 

Senator Catron. Provided they both had the same mark? 

Col. Michie. The same grade; that is, both would be colonels — 
a junior in grade could not be ahead of a higher grade. 

Senator Warren. It does not correct the age in that particular 
case, where two holding commissions meet. 

Col. Michie. The senior in service would command. 

Senator Warren. But there may be a man in the notch below with 
longer service than either one of them. 

Col Michie. If so, this constructive feature provides for such 
cases. 

Senator Fletcher. Is there much complaint about the present 
system ? 

Col. Michie. Yes, sir; a great deal of complaint, and it is bound 
to increase. As you increase certain arms, as contemplated, without 
increasing other arms or making some provision for their officers, 
those officers will naturally feel lost in the shuffle, so to speak. 

Senator Sheppard. Is there any room given for the operation of 
the question of merit ? 

Col. Michie. The present law provides for examination for promo- 
tion, so there is bound to be examination in all cases. You could 
not send up a man who is not qualified. The examination is as 
provided by the President, and no man could be promoted unless 
he passed that examination. 

Senator Sheppard. Is that the existing law ? 

Col. Michie. Yes ; and that would still apply to this case. 

Senator Warren. Does it provide that a man can be taken from 
one arm and put in another without promoting him ? 

Col. Michie. This does not. 

Senator Warren. That is what I am asking you. 

Col. Michie. No; this does not. 

Senator Warren. Does this contemplate an examination ? That 
was the inquiry of you. 

Col. Michie. Yes. The examination as now required by law. 

Senator Warren. I know they are to be examined when they are 
promoted, but the question is before the committee whether we 
should not extend that up to and including colonel. The point is 
whether to provide an examination if a man should be taken from 
one arm and put in another. 

Col. Michie. Transfer without promotion is not contemplated in 
sections "B" and "C." 

Senator Warren. I wanted to bring that feature out. Is it nec- 
essary to do that ? Is it better to do it ? Of course, you have all the 
machinery for examinations. 

29936—16 2 



18 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

Col. Michie. I think an officer should be examined if he is trans- 
ferred from one arm to another as to his fitness for that arm. 

Senator Catron. You should examine him especially for the serv- 
ice in the arm he is going to. 

Col. Michie. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. I think that feature ought to be in this proviso. 

The Chairman. The law as it stands now provides for these 
examinations. 

Senator du Pont. Not for transfer. 

The Chairman. For promotion. 

Senator Warren. It provides for promotion, but my idea is that 
we had better have too many examinations than too few. I do not 
believe in this idea of having a man get a station and stay there for 
life without examination after they get above a certain grade. I 
believe if you want to keep up the character of the Army you have 
to keep up examinations, and it does seem to me that where there 
are men running along for several years perhaps as captains, that 
ought to be considered. 

The Chairman. It seems to me there ought to be some provision 
for examination. You generally approve of this? 

Col. Michie. I do, as the best scheme that has been submitted 
by the department. 

Senator Catron. What is it you approve of >. 

Col. Michie. I approve of the entire draft as submitted by the 
Secretary of War ad interim. 

The Chairman. Gen. McCain thinks that while it would relieve 
the situation now, the same or other inequalities would grow up in 
the service after a while. 

Col. Michie. The last section (C) is continuing in its effect, and 
would always tend to equalize promotion; and, as I understood 
Gen. McCain, he advocated using the detached list for exactly the 
same purpose, and as contemplated therein. 

STATEMENT OF COL. RICHMOND P. DAVIS, ASSISTANT TO THE 
CHIEF OF COAST ARTILLERY, UNITED STATES ARMY. 

The Chairman. Colonel, we will be pleased to hear from you in 
reference to this resolution that is under consideration. You are in 
what branch of the service ? 

Col. Davis. I am colonel in the Coast Artillery Corps. In order to 
give my opinion on the resolution which is now before the committee, 
it will be necessary to go into the history of this particular scheme. 

I was chairman of the subcommittee which drew up that report in 
1912 from which Col. Michie quoted when he referred to the fact that 
it was stated in a report that it was thought some scheme for 
equalizing promotions in the mobile army should be adopted. At 
that particular time I absolutely opposed the provision, and opposed 
it so strongly, as far as the Coast Artillery Corps was concerned, that 
the Coast Artillery Corps was eliminated from any scheme whatever 
of injecting into organization the question of promotion. I still 
have the same opinion that I had then, except that I have strength- 
ened my opinion, that not only should this subject be eliminated from 
the relation of the mobile army to the Coast Artillery, but it should 
be eliminated from all branches of the mobile army. 

In that connection the Office of the Chief of Coast Artillery sub- 
mitted a memorandum, which I desire to put in evidence, from the 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE AEMY. 19 



Office of the Chief of Coast Artillery, when Col. Michie reintroduced 
this idea in a memorandum about six or eight weeks ago. In regard 
to that memorandum the Chief of the Coast Artillery says (reading) : 

The memorandum on this subject, prepared by Lieut. Col. Michie, of the General 
Staff, starts off with an extract from a report on the organization of the land forces of 
the United States on the subject of relative promotion. It is noted that the last sen- 
tence of this paragraph states: 

"It is therefore considered an absolutely necessary preliminary to any reorganiza- 
tion of the mobile army to place promotion on an equitable basis independent of 
organization." 

It is to be noted that reference here is solely to the mobile army. At the time of the 
preparation of this report the question of relative promotion was given considerable 
attention, and the statement in regard to the mobile army, incorporated in the report, 
was based on the fact that the three primary elements of the mobile army, to wit, 
Cavalry, Field Artillery, and Infantry, are in effect a unit in that certain proportions 
of each of these arms must be found in any well balanced and effective mobile army 
organization. It was pointed out by those who desired to establish parity of promo- 
tion between the elements of this unit of the national defense, that opportunities to 
command and to enjoy other privileges which come with rank should be equal in 
each of the three elements at any particular time. 

That is. the report on the organization of land forces of the United States regarded 
the Coast Artillery as a special arm and as having no relation whatever to the other 
branches of the Army in its tactical employment, and therefore the question of rank 
and precedence in this particular branch of the line in relation to the other unit 
(the mobile army) did not offer any ground whatever for extending to the Coast 
Artillery the proposition that promotion should be arranged so that at any particular 
epoch officers of the same length of service would have had practically equal promotion. 

2. Certain tables are given in the memorandum of Lieut. Col. Michie which convey 
a very erroneous idea as to the advantages which have been enjoyed in the various 
arms of the service in the matter of promotion. Any conclusions of value on this 
subject must be based on the average extending over a period of years and must not 
be based on a particular condition existing at a particular time. On the basis of an 
average extending over the past 34 years the following table shows the total length 
of commissioned service in the Regular Army of the senior officer in the grades of 
lieutenant colonel, major, captain, and first lieutenant in the Cavalry, Artillery, and 
Infantry, as shown by the Army Registers, 1882-1915, inclusive. An inspection of 
this table will show that Coast Artillery officers have averaged longer to reach any 
particular grade than those of the other arms. 



Lieutenant colonel : 

Coast Artillery 35. 6 

Infantry 33. 3 

Cavalry 32. 7 

Major: 

Coast Artillery 32. 4 

Cavalry 30.8 

Infantry 30. 



Captain: 

Coast Artillery 26. 3 

Cavalry 26. 3 

Infantry 26. 2 

First lieutenant: 

Coast Artillery 16. 9 

Infantry 16.2 

Cavalry 14. 3 



This conclusion could have been anticipated by considering the rule on which all 
mortality tables are based, on the average life of a great number of individuals. It 
may, indeed, be stated that the average promotion in a body of 750 officers will be 
practically the same over a period of years as for any other body of officers of approxi- 
mately the same number. 

I might state that in preparing this memorandum I did not put in 
what I am going to read to you now with any idea that I would ever 
put that in as an argument, but I put it in here in opposition to the 
statement that something is necessary to be done at a particular time. 

Senator Warren. Would it disturb you if I asked you a question 
right here ? 

Col. Davis. No, sir. 

Senator Warren. In getting that average, of course before the Ar- 
tillery was greatly increased it would be very slow. There were a 
small number of men then and a large number now. In that average 
have you put the two together, and then taken the average of the 



20 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE AEMY. 



later army and the smaller army, or have you not gone to the ages 
of a given number, say for 20 officers ? 

Col. Davis. I have prepared curves of averages for every year from 
1882 to 1915, in which is shown the number of years it has taken any 
branch to reach certain grades. I have that for lieutenant colonel, 
major, and captain, for Cavalry, Infantry, and Coast Artillery, and they 
are quite illuminating, as shown by this data that I will give for 1898. 



Name. 



Date of 

original 

entry into 

service. 



Infantry 

Cavalry (has advantage of 6 years) . 

Coast Artillery 

Field Artillery 

Infantry (has advantage of 1 year).. 

Cavalry 

Coast Artillery 

Field Artillery 

Infantry (has advantage of 4 years). 
Cavalry (has advantage of 3 years) . 

Coast Artillery 

Field Artillery 

Infantry (has advantage of 8 years). 
Cavalry (has advantage of 13 years) 

Coast Artillery 

Field Artillery 

Infantry (has advantage of 2 years). 
Cavalry (has advantage of 2 years) . 

Coast Artillery 

Field Artillery 



JUNIOR COLONELS. 

Daniel W. Benham 

John M. Bacon 

|john J. Rodgers 

JUNIOR LIEUTENANT COLONELS. 

Abram A. Harbach 

Charles D. Viele 

| William L. Haskin 

JUNIOR MAJORS. 

Gasper II. Conrad 

Allen Smith 

[•James Chester 

JUNIOR CAPTAINS. 

James A . Maney 

Harry C. Bensen 

j Henry L. Harris 

JUNIOR FIRST LIEUTENANTS. 

Ross L. Bush 

Louis C. Scherer 

JGeorge Le R. Irwin 



Nov. 8,1861 
Jan. 14,1867 

May 6, 1861 



June 20,1802 
Nov. 7,1861 

Aug. 5, 1861 



Apr. 12.1867 
Aug. 15,1866 

Apr. 17,1863 



June 15,1877 
June 13,1882 

June 15,1869 



June 12,1891 
Do. 

June 12,1889 



It is submitted that promotion should be considered, primarily, as it affects effi- 
ciency. There should be a certain ratio between the number of officers in the higher 
grades and the lower grades, so that the average officer will be advanced to positions 
of greater responsibility as his service continues. In fact, the possibility of such 
advancement is the only thing which will keep individuals alive and alert to their 
work and opportunities. 

This is well illustrated by the condition of the Artillery in 1897, when there were 
first lieutenants who had had 30 years of service. Of course, the Artillery was per- 
meated with dry rot. It may be stated in this connection that at that period there 
were officers of the Cavalry with but 30 years' commissioned service in the Regular 
Army who were in the grade of major. 

So far as the Coast Artillery is concerned, it is thought that under no circumstances 
should there be introduced a provision of law which would provide for an officer 
upon his promotion being transferred to another branch of the service simply for the 
purpose of that officer getting slightly more advanced promotion. Such a propo- 
sition would savor of considering the interests and advantages of individuals as para- 
mount to the efficiency of the service. 

5. The Chief of Coast Artillery is of the opinion that the two basic principles which 
should govern are: 

(a) The proportion of field officers to junior officers should be practically the same 
in all branches of the service. 

(6) Officers detached from their arms of the service for any purpose whatever 
should be in proportion to the total commissioned strength in each grade of each branch 
from which detachments are to be made. 

These principles are, indeed, thought to be axiomatic and as such not open to 
discussion. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 21 




22 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY, 

























































/ 


/ 

/ 


i 




\ 
































i 
i 
i 




| 




































> 




i 
































y 




-'" 




^ 


i<^ 






1 






















I 
j 








































/ 
/ 




%^ 








































; 










































<T 


























3 
















'■' 


cr 

u 
































„-- 


•" 




> 


si 

£ 5 






















< 

- 






/ 










Q 


tr o 


















j 


— 


£ 
o 






\ 


'"" 


V"" 

\ 








Si 

cr < 
* v 




















^ 
? 










-__J\ 








!1 






















2 










..<" 


'..--' 




£. 


H 




















< 
















1 


si 


j 


J p 


















>-• 

5 










\ 
\ 






Z 
C 






















_> 






k 


V 


*r 






3 

5 

c 


gi 


5 




















o 






a 


" 


>^ 


^^ 




p 


6h 


z 




















EC ' 

o 
-3 
















£ 


a: <=> 

pp 


D 




















u. 
















c 
























d 

■O 








/ 










































. ~^ - 


-^ 


■ ^__ 
























2 ! 














; 


^-- 


■ -''' 
























10 
5 
















^ 
\ 


























2: 

D 














\ i 








































A 

/ \ 








































\ 
\ 


Y 






































\ 


- "S 






































^ 




\ 


































****>: 


~>?» 


*"V 








































\/ 


■ 


\ 


















1 














_^ V 


£> 


•■tz" 
































--'"l 






' — 


— 


-- 


v~ 


_ 












; 




1 


»l i 


5 






i 


waagj 


(J3N0I 


SIWW 


i ; 


J 1 

sav3 




1 


5 















EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 23 




24 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

Col. Davis. I might enlarge a little bit here on the scheme of this 
resolution. There are involved several things which need attention. 
In this particular connection I will recur to the so-called reservoir 
system, the last proposition which the advocates of this scheme have 
advocated. First, there was the idea of the single list. After that 
the scheme, which is here. I might say the first attempt to inject 
this proposition into the situation was in the Army bill, which was 
prepared in the War Department. The item was rejected by the 
people who drew up the so-called War Department bill. 

The next proposition that came was the insertion of it into the Ar- 
ticles of War. I have just gotten the report of your committee. I 
saw it on my desk this morning. That was drawn up by a subcom- 
mittee, and I looked at once to see whether article 120 had this item 
in it. I found that your final report comes out without it. 

In order to get the data on the subject of whether or not the General 
Staff as a body favor the induction of this principle into the Articles 
of War, the proposition was sent to all the General Staff officers, and 
about two days ago I had a letter from a major of the General Staff 
in the Philippine Islands, who wrote on that particular article and 
sent me a copy of what he wrote. As all he had to say bears on this 
subject, and expresses an opinion of a General Staff officer, I would 
like to read it. 

The Chairman. In what branch of the service is that officer? 

Col. Davis. A major in the Coast Artillery Corps. He says: 

Even if this article were sound in principle, it offers no definite rule for the readjust- 
ment of anomalous positions of officers in the several branches and would reopen a 
subject which, particularly for those officers who came in the Regular Service from the 
Volunteers, would cause a great deal of dissatisfaction and bad feeling. This question 
wag arbitrarily settled years ago and no possible good could result from disturbing the 
arrangement which has existed for years and thereby subjecting the War Department 
to the conflicting influences that would be brought to bear upon it in its solution of this 
most intricate problem. 

It is based on the idea that all officers in the Army have a right to equal promotion . 
This is practically the fundamental principle of trade-unionism and socialism, which 
oppose the advancement of the individual and requires that everybody must share 
alike. The result of such a system is mediocrity of effort and accomplishment. In 
practically all walks of life the able are permitted to forge to the front. It is the very 
principle in nature upon which the struggle for existence is based. The efficiency of 
an officer of the Army is not a direct function of the length of time he has been on the 
pay rolls of the Army, and the mere fact that an officer has spent a longer time in a 
subordinate grade does not give him any peculiar fitness to take command away from 
one who has had more experience in the grade that both may then occupy. If there 
is any argument in length of service its weight should be on the side of the time spent 
in the more responsible positions. In my judgment a system that would promote, 
at least in part, by selection based on demonstrated efficiency and safeguarded against 
favoritism and political preferment would have a most beneficial effect on our Army. 
An opportunity to get out of the lineal rut would be an incentive to officers to make 
the greatest efforts to master their profession and to develop their highest efficiency . 
Even the proposed article 120 recognizes the value of selection in time of war or 
public danger; why therefore, with our appreciation of the value of preparedness, 
should we wait for time of stress to take cognizance of a principle then so valuable? 

Inequality of promotion is something that has always existed ; more important, con- 
siderations than its effects have always brought it about. The history of our Army 
shows it to be a seesaw affair. For instance, the branches of the service whose officers 
waited from 1867 to 1898 to get the grade of captain are ahead in their senior grades; in 
a few years the lieutenants of these branches will probably feel the weight of this. The 
military system of the United States is more like that of Great Britain than of any 
other nation and the brunt of initial operations in any war would fall heavily upon our 
mobile army. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OP THE ARMY. 25 

The foregoing refers to section A of the resolution which bears on 
rank and precedence by length of service. 

This scheme of promotion on length of service is the absolute an- 
tithesis of promotion by selection. We all know if we could get pro- 
motion by selection on a satisfactory basis it should be done. This 
scheme being the exact opposite of that, certainly can not be a correct 
one. 

Senator Warren. Your judgment on that is that if we are seeking 
efficiency of the Army that it should not be adopted ? 

Col. Davis. Yes, sir. 

Senator Warren. And that if we adopt it, it is done for the officers 
themselves as against the efficiency of the Army ? 

Col. Davis. Absolutely and unreservedly, and I have opposed it 
since 1912. 

Senator Warren. You differentiate between the Coast Artillery 
and the mobile army, and of course I see the difference, as everybody 
else does, that the three branches of the mobile army are more readily 
interchangeable in one body than is the Coast Artillery. But sup- 
pose you eliminate the Coast Artillery. Then do you favor that ? 

Col. Davis. I do not. 1 am absolutely against it from start to 
finish. 

Senator ou Pont. Colonel, is it proposed to largely increase the 
Coast Artillery Corps ? 

Col. Davis. At present \ 

Senator du Pont. At present. 

Col. Davis. Not in the same proportion as the other branches of the 
service. 

Senator du Pont. That I admit, but it is proposed to increase 
the Coast Artillery ? 

Col. Davis. About the same as the Cavalry, under your present 
bill. 

Senator Fletcher. From five to eight thousand ? 

Col. Davis. We have 10,000; 6,000, with a provision that the 
President may increase it up to about 10,000; but the officers on the 
basis of the proper cadre. 

Senator du Pont. Your idea is that the promotion in the Coast 
Artillery should be reserved exclusively to Coast Artillery officers ? 

Col. Davis. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. You do not advocate the transfer from other 
arms provided they could pass a satisfactory examination ? Or would 
you recommend that the vacancies thereby created should be filled 
by civilians who pass a proper examination? 

Col. Davis. I would make promotions, and then have civilians at 
the bottom on proper examination. 

Senator du Pont. You would not allow an Infantry officer, if he 
could pass the examination, to come in the Coast Artillery Corps ? 

Col. Davis. I would, grade for grade, if there were a very abnormal 
increase and it were necessary. I might consider that proposition, 
grade for grade, if he could pass an examination, and would come in, 
as has been done before, because of an abnormal amount of pro- 
motion. 

Senator Warren. The colonel refers to the bill now before us, 
which increases the Cavalry. But we hear every day of a bill in the 
House which does not increase the Cavalry, and I want to ask the 



26 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE AEMY. 

colonel if he would still be of that opinion, with the increase of the 
Artillery to 10,000, leaving the Cavalry stand with no increase 
whatever ? 

Col. Davis. I will tell you exactly what I would do in that case, 
because I have been studying this subject on account of this scheme 
coming up. 

Senator Warren. I am asking you because you have studied it. 

Col. Davis. If the Cavalry is given no increase at all by the com- 
bined bills, I would include both original vacancies and the additional 
officers' vacancies, divide them up in proportion to the total com- 
missioned strength, and if there were no vacancies in any particular 
branch of the service, as the Cavalry in this particular case, I would 
make those officers additional officers, exactly as you did when you 
wanted to correct some inequalities in 1911. 

Senator Warren. But we passed the law, thinking that applied to 
14 officers, and the men down in the department applied it to about 
214. 

Col. Davis. Have Gen. McCain work out the details before you 
do it. That is the only proposition. The mistake was made in that 
case because the details were not worked out beforehand. 

Senator Warren. I do not know that any mistake was made, 
except that we accepted the proposition when one of our Members, 
who was a West Point graduate, made it to the committee, and it 
was put in on the floor with that statement. 

Col. Davis. We did not know ourselves. I was familiar with that, 
and we did not know ourselves about it. 

Senator Warren. I, as chairman, accepted an amendment by a 
member of the committee who was a West Point graduate, which he 
stated would affect only 14. 

Senator du Pont. You do not refer to me, do you ? 

Senator Warren. Not at all. It was Senator Briggs. I think it 
was before your entrance into the Senate, was it not? 

Senator du Pont. No; I was a member of this committee then. 

Senator Warren. If you remember, we refused to put the amend- 
ment on in the committee, but he was to consult with the War De- 
partment, and I was to accept it providing he got unanimous consent 
to it on the floor. 

Col. Davis. The principle of that was fine. The principle of it was 
perfect when you made those additional officers. 

Senator Warren. Our intention's were perfect. 

Col. Davis. The way the law was worded it did not work out the 
way we thought it was going to work out. But with that experience 
you could correct it. If you did not want to do that, you could give 
the Cavalry for the time being more people in the reservoir. But I 
would divide up the vacancies in case the Cavalry got no additions 
in the House. 

The Chairman. Why do you apply that to them when you do not 
apply it to the Coast Artillery ? 

Col. Davis. I would include the Coast Artillery and also the Cavalry 
on account of the particular critical situation that has arisen. 

The Chairman. But you do not want to apply the critical situa- 
tion. You state that in promotions in the Coast Artillery they ought 
to be included in this general scheme for promotion. If it is a good 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 27 

rule to go by in the Coast Artillery, why should not the same prin- 
ciple be included in the Cavalry and its promotions ? 

Col. Davis. Right. 

The Chairman. And the Infantry and its promotions ? 

Col. Davis. Right. 

The Chairman. Why change a principle to meet what you call a 
critical situation ? 

Col. Davis. I think that in all walks of life particular situations 
come up that apply to the particular time but have no general appli- 
cation. You will have a particular situation coming up and you will 
have to have a particular rule to meet the particular situation; but 
as to applying the proposition generally I would not think of doing it 
for anything in the world. 

Senator Warren. I think I ought to say, after the observation I 
made a while ago, as to the 14 which came to be perhaps nearly 200, 
I shall not feel badly about it if there is a large percentage of those 
who might have been undeserved, providing it did justice to the offi- 
cers who were in a very peculiar position and had been badly wronged, 
not intentionally, but by the evolution and changing from the old to 
the new. 

Col. Davis. By the action of law? 

Senator Warren. Yes. 

Col. Davis. About 1892, or somewhere along there? 

Senator Warren. Yes. 

Col. Davis. That was true. 

I got some data from the War College on this subject and, I might 
say that in studying the subject, there is a pile of papers on it. 

Senator Catron. You say you are in favor of promotion by selec- 
tion — of taking the ablest officers. Who is going to determine that ? 

Col. Davis. It has not been possible to work out any scheme of 
selection which has been satisfactory, either to the Army at large or 
to Members of Congress. 

Senator Catron. That would result absolutely in favoritism. 

Senator Warren. It is an old matter. 

Col. Davis. I only bring it up 

Senator Warren. It is perfectly out of the question to consider it, 
with the public mind as at present. The President can do it in war. 

Col. Davis. I just mention that. I have no scheme for it, but it 
is a live subject in connection with promotion. . 

In regard to the German situation, I find that as far as the years 
are concerned, the number in the different corps to corresponding 
grades varies. 

The following tables show the average length of time spent in each grade by the 
officers in the different branches of the service. 

It will be noted that notwithstanding the fact that Germany has used elimination 
selection, and additional officers for the purpose of equalizing promotion, she has to 
date been unable to do so. In Prussia the length of service of the senior colonels 
varies from 38 years 2 months for the Infantry to 34 years 7 months for the foot Artil- 
lery. This, however, does not quite show the difference which actually exists be- 
tween the various branches of the service for the simple reason that the pay is fixed 
by the office held, and not by the rank. Most of the Cavalry majors are regimental 
commanders, and as such receive the same pay as a colonel of Infantry, as practically 
all the Infantry regiments are commanded by colonels. In the Field and Foot Artil- 
lery regimental commanders are taken from the lieutenant colonels and colonels, the 
greater number of lieutenant colonels commanding regiments. This results in the 
Cavalry officers receiving regimental commanders' pay after 26 years 3 months service 



28 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

(about); field artillerymen after 32 years 2 months; and infantrymen after 35 years 2 
months. 

BAVARIA.i 



Second lieutenant . 
First lieutenant... 
Captain 



To major. 



Infantry. 



Cavalry. 



Yrs. Mos. Yrs. 2 

10 8 9 

5 4 

8 2 5 



23 10 



Field 
Artillery. 



Yrs. Mos. 
10 5 
5 3 
5 11 



21 



Foot 
Artillery. 



Yrs. Mos. 
10 2 
5 10 
4 6 



20 6 



Engineers. 



Yrs. Mos. 
7 2 
5 4 
4 2 



16 8 



SAXONY. 



Lieutenant 

First lieutenant 

Captain 

Major 

Lieutenant colonel. 
Colonel 



Total service to general . 



s 


9 


8 3 


5 


5 


4 7 


9 





9 10 


4 


3 


4 


2 





3 11 


4 





2 1 


33 


5 


32 8 



5 4 

7 7 
4 



PRUSSIA. 



Lieutenant 

First lieutenant 

Captain 

Major 

Lieutenant colonel. 
Colonels 



Total service to general . 



9 





7 


11 


9 


4 


6 


3 


3 


1 


2 


7 


38 


2 



38 2 



37 5 



8 11 

5 5 

4 
16 11 

1 6 
3 6 



36 



1 The senior colonel has 31 years' service: the senior lieutenant colonel, 29: and the senior major, 27 years 
service. 



Senator Warren. What percentage is chosen by selection? It is 
not entirely selection ? 

Col. Davis. There is a table here. 

The Chairman. How fully are you going into this? 

Col. Davis. I am through, sir. 

Senator Warren. I apologize for asking about that, but it is a 
live question, the question of having a certain percentage by selec- 
tion, and I thought we would get the information to print. 

Col. Davis. I can read this. 

The Chairman. What are you reading from now? 

Col. Davis. From a compilation which has been made from 
Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, and other 
nations. 

Senator du Pont. Do you not think that had best be appended to 
the record so that it can be printed ? 

Col. Davis. I can just copy out those figures. 

The Chairman. Yes: that would be well. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 



29 



Features in the scheme of promotion and retirement in foreign armies. 











^ 






, 












c*» 


o 


fe ° 


* 










"2 * 

S tf. 


fl 


3 s -r 


fi n ; 


•30 




.5- >> 








o 


u 


5 S £ 


MT3 


fc-O 


t, M.2 


u 
















03^) 




J5 








$•§■2 


>> 
o 

'8 
>. 


.2 §.2 
fl 2 .22 




(2.2 

.2 ® 

C ■ i_ - 
« O.O 

c« a) 

>>« s 


3tr§ 


>>3 

in 03 

B » 
pi 


C3 

■3 




03 

3 

"o 




« 


m 


« 


< 


« 





h 


> 


























X 




X 


X 


X 


















X 


X 


X 


X 












X 
X 


X 


X 


X 


X 












Italy 7 




















Serbia 8 




X 
X 






X 




X 

X 














Chile « 


X 


X 






X 


X 


X 


X 









1 Promotion by seniority in arm of service to include lieutenant colonel; by seniority for grades of colonel 
and generals of brigade and division; by selection for generals and field marshals; Emperor has power to 
promote by selection officers of any grade, and does so to extent of about 20 per cent of vacancies. Pro- 
motions take place twice a year— in May and November. 

2 Second lieutenants promoted after 2 years' service; to first lieutenant by seniority; to captain, two 
thirds by seniority, one-third by selection; to major, one-half by seniority, one-half by selection; to lieu- 
tenant colonel and higher grades^ by selection. Compulsory retirements— Lieutenants at 52, captains at 53, 
majors at 56, lieutenant colonels at 58, colonels at 60, generals of brigade at 62, generals of division at 65. 

s Promotion not regulated by law, but at will of Emperor ,Jconforming to certain traditions; to first lieu- 
tenant in arm of service: to captain, by seniority in regiment; to major, by seniority in arm olserv ice; to 
higher grades by seniority in army. For field officers when vacancy occurs in any arm, senior in next lower 
grade in that arm is not promoted thereto until all his seniors in other arms have been advanced to that 
grade. 

* System of promotion complicated by many exceptions to general rules, by occupation of positions which 
carry increased pay regardless of rank and by other causes. In infantry and cavalry, promotion to include 
major is by seniority in regiment and to higher grades by selection. In artillery and engineers, by seniority 
to major; above, by selection. Retirementscompulsoryatfollowingages: Lieutenantorcaptain,45; major, 
48; lieutenant colonel, 54; colonel, 57; major general, 62; lieutenant general and general, 67. Same methods 
continue in regular army during present war. 

5 Promotion of subalterns after years of service as follows: To lieutenant , 4; to second captain, 8; to cap- 
tain, 12. In cavalry and infantry, from captain to lieutenant colonel, one-half by seniority, one-half by 
selection; to colonel, by selection. In guard, artillery, and engineers, all by seniority in arm. To general 
officer, by selection. Compulsory retirements: Subalterns and captains at 53; lieutenant colonels at 58. 

e Promotion to first lieutenant, two-thirds by seniority in regiment, one-third by selection; to captain, 
one-half each; higher grades, by selection in arm. Compulsory retirements: Lieutenants at 45, captains 
at 48, majors at 50, lieutenant colonels at 53, colonels at 55, major generals at 58, lieutenant generals at 62, 
generals at 65. . . 

' Promotion to first lieutenant at 3 years: to captain, one-fourth by selection, three-fourths by seniority, 
or after 15 years' service; to major and lieutenant colonel, by seniority; higher grades, by selection. 

8 Promotion by seniority, limited by minimum service in grade. 

9 Promotion in line principally by seniority, a few by selection. Elimination for cause. 

i° Promotion to first lieutenant, one-third by selection, two-thirds by seniority in arm; to captain, one- 
half by selection, one-half by seniority in arm; to major, two-thirds by selection, one-third by seniority in 
arm; to lieutenant colonel, one-half by selection, one-half by seniority in arm; all grades above, by selection 
only. Beginning with promotion to major, vacancies filled by selection from general list of the army. 
Compulsory retirements at following ages: Lieutenants, 40: first lieutenants, 43; captains, 46; majors, 50; 
lieutenant colonels, 54; colonels, 57; brigadier generals, 60; major generals, 63; lieutenant generals, 65. 

u Promotion to first lieutenant and captain, two-thirds by seniority in arm, one-third by selection; to 
major and lieutenant colonel, one-third by seniority in arm, two-thirds by selection; to colonel and brig- 
adier general, by seniority in army: to general of division, by seniority from brigadier generals. Promo- 
tions limited by minimum length of service in grade. Compulsory retirements: Second lieutenants at 30; 
first lieutenants at 35, captains at 45, majors at 50, lieutenant colonels at 55, colonels at 58, generals of brigade 
at 61, generals of division at 63. 

Col. Davis. Referring to "the printed matter under consideration, 
section A, first page, it would be ex post facto to start with. It would 
upset practically the entire relative list of the Army, every arm as it 
stands to-day. When a promotion would be made from one grade to 
the next, the relative list would be entirely upset. 

On the top of the next page it says : 

Provided further. That nothing in this act shall change the present arrangement of 
officers in the lineal list of their respective arms. 



30 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IX THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

If the length of continuous service should be the rule, as between 
the Infantry and Cavalry, it certainly would appear that it ought to be 
the rule in the Cavalry. I hardly see any gooct reason for saying that 
a man who has been more than 30 years in this service and is a lieu- 
tenant colonel of Cavalry should rank a lieutenant colonel of Infantry 
who has been 29 years hi the service, and yet a lieutenant colonel of 
Cavalry who has been 29 years in the service ranks the lieutenant 
colonel of calvary of 30 years service. That is a condition of affairs 
that would be brought out by that paragraph — an absurd situation. 

In the next paragraph, dividing up original vacancies and trans- 
ferring officers from one branch of the service to another are involved. 
I think, except in the lower grades, that it is perfectly fatal to 
efficiency to talk about transferring officers from one grade to another. 

With regard to C, that has been the subject of discussion among 
the officers of the War Department for a long time. Gen. McCain 
has worked out a scheme which I have seen, which I consider is the 
only one in which the efficiency of the service is not detrimentally 
affected by the reservoir proposition. I consider it absolutely nec- 
essary for efficiency that officers should be detached in direct propor- 
tion to the total commissioned strength in the different branches, 
and these are my reasons: 

Detached officers were provided originally for the purpose of hav- 
ing the proper complement of officers with each organization. It 
may be stated as a principle that all branches of the service need the 
the same proportion of officers with their organizations. Neces- 
sary detachments are approximately in proportion to the total com- 
missioned strength. Therefore if you have a law that detachments 
from all arms be made in proportion to the total commissioned 
strengths, you have the proper condition. 

Gen. McCain has worked out a scheme which approximately does 
this, using the detached list as a reservoir, and which will equalize 
promotion eventually. 

Senator du Pont. How long has it been since the Coast Artillery 
and the Field Artillery were divided ? 

Col. Davis. They were divided in 1907. 

Senator du Pont. Is it not a fact that there are a number of Coast 
Artillery officers who served in the past in the Light Artillery? 

Col. Davis. Yes. 

Senator du Pont. Is it not also a fact that a number of those 
officers at the time desired and applied to go into Light Artillery, 
but could not because there was no place for them '. 

Col. Davis. There were several especially in the lower grades, a 
few above. 

Senator du Pont. Would it not be a good scheme, as the Light 
Artillery is likely to be increased, to allow those officers to go back 
who want to ? 

Col. Davis. Below the grade of captain; yes. Above if an officer 
has had previous experience in the new arm. 

Senator du Pont. Even if a captain had served as a captain of 
Light Artillery '. 

Col. Davis. I think it would be in the interest of efficiency. 

Senator du Pont. And in the interest of the Army in general? 

Col. Davis. There is an abnormal increase, and it requires a dif- 
ferent rule to meet an abnormal increase. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 31 

Senator Warren. We have general officers appointed from all 
arms. If there was not an interchange to some extent of arms, we 
would have general officers who would be educated only in one arm. 
Your idea, I presume, is that a general officer ought to have a good 
education in all classes ( 

Col. Davis. Up to and including the grade of brigadier general 
appointments should be made from the branch of the Army in which 
an officer has served. I do not think there is any question about 
that, and I think it ought to be put into law. 

Senator Warren. But if there were two colonels, and one had 
been in all the arms, and had been proficient in all, you would take 
him \ 

Col. Davis. If he were efficient, there is no question but that he 
would be favored for the selection. 

Senator du Pont. Is it not a fact that during the Civil War a great 
many division commanders of Infantry were Artillery officers ? 

Col. Davis. Oh, yes, sir. But those are the exceptional cases, 
Senator, and we can not prove general rules by exceptional cases. 

The Chairman. It has been suggested that the Chief of Coast 
Artillery should rank as a brigadier general, just as these other staff 
officers rank. It has been insisted to me that he occupies a position 
different from the others, in that he commands a body of men as 
large as a division, presided over by a major general. Is his position 
more like the major general's commanding a division than any of 
these others ? 

Col. Davis. His position is very similar to that of a major general 
commanding a department. The position of a major general com- 
manding a department is very similar to the position that the Chief 
of Coast Artillery occupies in the War Department. 

Senator Warren. In other words, he is really not with the troops 
at all? 

Col. Davis. Just as the Chief of Staff is not with them, but every- 
body knows the Chief of Staff is commanding the Army. In fact, 
he commands the Army, but he is not called the commanding officer 
of the Army. Nobody denies, however, that the Chief of Staff is really 
the commanding officer of the United States Army. The particular 
office of Chief of Staff was created in place of the commanding general 
of the Army, to perform the functions that the commanding general 
of the Army did perform before that office was created. 

Senator Warren. He commands all branches ? 

Col. Davis. He commands everything. The Chief of Staff has 
under him the Chief of Coast Artillery, who is responsible for the 
training, the discipline, and all matters connected with the Coast 
Artillery Corps, the man who is responsible to the Chief of Staff and 
the Secretary of War for 28,000 men is the Chief of Coast Artillery, 
and he is a general of the line. 

Senator du Pont. What do you mean by discipline ? He has not 
the right to convene courts-martial. 

Col. Davis. I mean instruction. I will leave out discipline. 
Then, in addition to that, the Chief of Coast Artillery must be a 
representative of the War Department for matters in connection 
with cooperation with the Navy. 



32 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, do not these division com- 
manders have command of the Coast Artillery within their depart- 
ments ? 

Col. Davis. Yes. 

The Chairman. In the eastern department, the west, and the cen- 
tral part of the country is it not the same way ? 

Col. Davis. Yes. 

The Chairman. Why, then, should he have a rank higher, if you 
please, than the quartermasters or any of these other department 
staff corps commanders ? 

Col. Davis. For this reason: One of the principal duties of the 
Chief of Coast Artillery is the coordination of all the matters under 
the bureaus which deal with the Coast Artillery. He is the assistant 
to the Chief of Staff, and represents the Chief of Staff in administering 
the department commands, so far as the Coast Artillery is concerned. 
He is a general #f the line, not a bureau chief. 

Senator du Font. Then I understand you think he ought to be a 
major general ? 

Col. Davis. Yes, sir; and it has been recommended for about five 
or six years by everybody. 

Senator du Pont. Do you think he is more entitled to be a major 
general than the Chief of Engineers ? 

Col. Davis. I do. 

Senator Warren. You speak of coordination. What about the 
Field Artillery ? 

Col. Davis. The Cavalry, the Infantry, and Field Artillery consti- 
tute one of the units of national defense. The Coast Artillery con- 
stitutes another unit, and the Navy another unit. The Coast 
Artillery is a unit in the War Department and must be administered 
as a unit, and it is very difficult to be administered as a unit and to 
be thrown in with other branches of the service. 

Senator du Pont. Is it not a fact that the Chief of Engineers has 
the control and direction of a larger personnel than the Chief of Coast 
Artillery directs and controls ? 

Col. Davis. Not military personnel; no, sir. 

Senator du Pont. Personnel connected with the Army, though \ 

Col. Davis. It is civil personnel, Senator. This is a military matter 
If you asked me whether or not I thought the Chief of Engineers 
should receive a great deal more pay than he gets, 1 would say yes. 

Senator du Pont. Pay, but not rank ? 

Col. Davis. Yes. 

Senator du Pont. That is your idea, pay but not rank? 

Col. Davis. I say, I think it is a position that would call for more 
pay, in comparison with the ordinary commercial organizations. But 
I might say, Senator Chamberlain, that Gen. Carter, in drawing up 
his scheme to submit to the Secretary of War as to what the position 
of the Chief of Coast Artillery should be, recommended major general, 
and it has been recommended by many others. 

Senator Warren. We had a bill here that recommended not only 
a major general for the Coast Artillery, but a major general for every 
bureau in the department, and there are several others in for the 
general staff, and so on. In that same one were carried the Coast 
Artillery, the chief of Infantry, the chief of Light Artillery, and the 
chief of Cavalry. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 33 

Col. Davis. As I say, even aside from that, Gen. Carter had this 
recommendation in, and it has heen recommended by a number of 
people for a great many years, and the Chief of Coast Artillery Corps 
is responsible for the administration of 28 000 men with materiel 
which constitute several hundred million dollars. 

Senator Catron. I can not get .your idea as to why you say this 
chief of the engineer corps should have more pay. How do you dis- 
tinguish that pay from the grade or rank he occupies ? 

Col. Davis. I mention that just the same as Gen. Goethals, who is 
an engineer on the Panama Canal, was a Lieutenant Colonel of Engi- 
neers, and drew an enormous salary on account of his employment 
of a great many more civilians than the chief of engineers controls. 
There is the exact parallel. Now he is a major general of the Army 
on the list, and he is still drawing that pay on account of the adminis- 
trative work he does, which is not really strictly military. Rank 
goes with military business, and pay goes with civilian business. 

Senator Catron. The chief of engineers would not have any other 
service than that connected with the Army ordinarily. 

Col. Davis. You have the exact analogy in Gen. Goethals. 

Senator Warren. The board of commissioners of the canal all 
had the same pay, Goethals and the others, did they not? 

Col. Davis. I do not know whether they did or not, but I think 
the governor naturally would have more pay in an organization of 
that kind. That is the exact parallel, and illustrates what I meant 
when I said that he should have more pay and not rank. Rank goes 
with the military obligations, and pay goes with the work he is doing. 

Senator Warren. But the other commissioners all had larger pay 
than a general would have. 

Col. Davis. Yes; when a man has w T ork outside of his regular 
work, he should get greater pay. He draws more than his rank 
would call for as an Army officer. 

Senator Fletcher. He draws the higher pay, of course. 

Col. Davis. Yes. 

Senator Warren. Our engineer commissioner here in this city, if 
you appoint an officer who docs not receive $5,000, gets the difference 
so as to be on a par with the oilier two < ommissioners. It is the 
same way with many of our officers at West Point, and the same with 
the head of public buildings and grounds here. 

MEMORANDUM BY COL. DAVIS IN EXTENSION OP HEARING ON A RESOLUTION AFFECT- 

ING PROMOTION. 

It is thought that the provision in the House bill which is a modification of the 
McCain scheme, referred to in my testimony, is the only solution of the proposition 
to use a detached list of officers as a reservoir for equalizing promotion which will 
not do violence to the status quo under existing law, or affect detrimentally the 
efficiency of one or more branches of the line by depriving that branch from repre- 
sentation at all times on the detached list. 

The paragraph is as follows, and is copied from the committee print of the House 
bill: 

"Sec. — . That a list of not to exceed nine hundred and eighty-six officers of the 
Cavalry, Field Artillery, Coast Artillery Corps, and Infantry arms of the service, of 
grades from first lieutenant to colonel, inclusive, lawfully detached from their proper 
commands for duty with the Organized Militia, or ether duty, the usual period of 
which exceeds one year, said list to include the two hundred detached officers pro- 
vided for by the act of Congress approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven, 
shall be subject to the provisions of section twenty-seven of the Act of Congress 

29936—16 3 



34 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OP THE AKMY. 

approved February second, nineteen hundred and one, with reference to details to 
the staff corps. The total number of officers hereby authoiized for each grade on said 
list entire shall be in proportion to the total number of officers of the corresponding 
grade now authoiized by law for all of the said four arms combined, exclusive of 
second lieutenants and of the two hundred extra officers authorized by the act of 
Congress approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven; and the total number 
of officers hereby authoiized for each grade in each of said arms on said list shall be 
in the proportion borne by the number of officers now authoiized by law for such 
grade and arm to the total number of officers now authorized by law for the correspond- 
ing grade in all of the said four arms combined, exclusive of the two hundred extra 
officers authorized by the act of Congress last hereinbefore cited: Provided, That any 
vacancy created or caused in any of the said arms of the service by the assignment 
of an officer of any grade to said list of detached officers shall be filled, subject to such 
examination as is now or may hereafter be prescribed by law, by the promotion of 
the senior officer eligible to promotion in the next lower grade in the aim in which 
such vacancy shall occur: Provided further, That no officer of any of said arms of the 
service shall be permitted to remain on said list of detached officers for more than 
thirty days unless he shall have been actually present for duty for at least two years 
out of the last preceding six years with an organization composed of one or more 
statutory units, or the equivah nt ther< of, of the arm to which he shall belong: Pro- 
i i '■ 'further, That after assignnu nt of officers to said list of detached ( fficers shall have 
been made as authorized by this act, whenever any vacancy shall have been caused 
in said list by the separation of an officer of any grade therefrom, such vacai cy shall 
be filled by the detail and assignment to said list of an officer of the corresponding 
grade in that arm in which there shall 1 e f< und the officer of the next lower grade 
who at that time shall be the senior in rank of all the officers of the said lower grade 
in all of the four arms hereinbefr re specified : if two or more c fficers of different arms 
shall be found to have equal seniority in rank in said lower grade, the officer having 
the longest commissioned service shall be regarded as the senior, and this failing to 
decide, the question shall be decided by lot: And proi r, That if under the 

operatii n of this section the ni ml or of officers returned to any particular arm of the 
service shall at any time exceed the number authorized by law f< r any grade in such 
arm, promotion to such grade shall cease until the number ef officers therein shall 
have been reduced below the number authorized by law." 

However, I am still strongly of the opinion that it would he a great doal better to 
apportion those detached officers to the vari< i s branches of the line in direct propor- 
tion to the commissioned strength as now proposed in the Senate print. I 1 elievethat 
the application r> f the reservoir principle will come 1 ack eventually to plague us. 

I am of the opinii n, further, that a provision of law should be introduced which 
will require in time of peace representation en the General Ptaff Corps and in the grade 
of general officer in direct proportion to the total authorized commissioned strength of 
the various arms. 

STATEMENT OF COL. CHARIFS G. TREAT, GENERAL STAFF, 
UNITED STATES ARMY. 

The Chairman. Col. Treat, what branch of the service have you 
served with? 

Col. Treat. I am in the I icld Artillery, at present on duty with the 
General Stcff. 

The Chairman. You know the subject under discussion here, and 
we would like to have your views on this proposed equalization of 
promotion scheme. 

Col. Treat. I would like to preface my remarks with the statement 
that I have been on duty at the War College for about a year and a 
half, where a number of questions of this nature have been discussed 
and reported unon. The section proposing to give original date of 
rank, and establish a list for precedence came up in the discussion in 
the revision of the articles of war, as they proposed then to make 
this new list, and two of the members of the committee voted favor- 
ably to this article, and I made a minority report, which expresses 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 35 

my general opinion on the subject. If the committee will all w me, 
I will read it. It is very short. 

Senator Catron. What was it the two members reported favorably 
to do ? 

Col. Treat. To include in the Articles of War an extra article, 
section 120, which would give constructive dates of precedence to 
officers who occupied an anomalous position. My report was as 
follows: [Reading:] 

My objection to the proposed article 120 is that it does not appear to me as sound 
in prim iple or policy. 
a. It is more commer ial than military. 
6. It puts the requirement of equality of promotion ahead of efficiency. 

c. It upsets the old established and accepted principle of rank according to date 
of commission in any grade, and will surely be a source of friction and be detrimen- 
tal to discipline. 

d. If the principle is sound it should apply to general officers as well as those below 
that grade. 

e. If applied consistently the officer selected and advanced abnormally for con- 
spicuous merit would always be the lowest in his grade on every change of station or 
duty where there are other officers of the same grade who were in the ser i e before 
him. unless in time of war or public danger he is designated to command by the 
I resident. 

2. 'ihe present rule is simple. and is based on incidents and accidents of service. 

3. If some means could be devised to insure selection on merit alone I be'ieve all 
promotions above the grade of ( a] t in should 1 e made by se'ection, 1 ut when once 
comn issioned in a grade, the di to of his commission 6xes his ran 1 - in tint grade. 

4. The first proviso "assignment of a constructive elate'' is fictitious and would 
not carry the v. eight and force of an actual date of commission. 

5. The second proviso, though sound in pri 'iple i i gi i g the President the power 
to select his comma) der i n < ase of ar or public da: ger, is defective in that it lin its 
him to selection from but oie grade, it rather should empover him to give addi- 
tional rank aid grade (even though temporary) to the leader he selects. 

6. The adopt io i of this pri 'iple ad the closely related proposition for a single 
list for promotion throughout the li le of the Army that has been suggested a: d is 
being agitated, would, i:i my opi: ion, discourage irritative a- d effort to excel in 
one's own department and at the same time i crease the prese.it demoralizi g effect 
resulting from the almost co" stant change of officers on duty v.ith an organisation 
now brought about by the detached-service law and foreign-service roster necessitated 
by maintaining colonial regime: its. 

Senator Beckham. What was the action of the War College on the 
report made by the majority? 

Col. Treat. That article was left out of the articles as presented 
by the Judge Advocate General. I do not know what the final action 
was. 

Senator Warren. It was voted down as applicable to that par- 
ticular place. 

Col. Treat. Yes; it was in the wrong place. They thought such 
legislation should not be made a part of the legislation in connection 
with the Articles of War. I am a colonel of Field Artillery, and which- 
ever one of these provisions is put into effect would not influence me 
in any way personally, and I have tried to be as fair and just in my 
views of this matter as I could, and I think I have been. 

I think that the principle should be to put efficiency ahead of 
promotion. 

Senator du Pont. Colonel, referring more particularly to these 
other provisos about the original vacancies, and transferring officers 
from some other arms of the service to the detached service list, what 
is your opinion about those ? 



36 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

Col. Treat. I think, Senator, that when there is an abnormal 
increase in any one branch of the service there should be some pro- 
vision to give officers of the other branches who are suitable a chance 
to transfer to that branch of the service. For example, as some of the 
bills proposed to Congress would indicate that the Field Artillery was 
to be increased from 6 regiments to 12 regiments, I would consider 
that an abnormal increase, and I believe that the officers of the other 
branches of the mobile army and the Coast Artillery who desired 
transfer to fill a certain number of the vacancies caused by this 
increase in that arm of the service should be allowed to do so by 
passing an examination, and by expressing their desire to join that 
service. 

Senator Warren. Could that be done under the law as it is at 
present administered ? 

Col. Treat. Yes, sir. 

Senator Warren. That is a matter of department transfer? 

Col. Treat. Yes, sir. I believe efficiency would indicate that if we 
made an increase in one branch of the service, as, for example, the 
one proposed for the Field Artillery, that a proportion of the vacancies 
caused by this increase should be given to the officers of that arm in 
proportion to their number as compared with that of the whole serv- 
ice. Then I believe that the rest of the vacancies should be filled 
from the officers from the other branches of the service who are suit- 
ably equipped physically and oth< rwise to pass the required examina- 
tion, and who desire transfer to that arm, grade for grade. This will 
apportion the promotions given by this increase of that arm to all 
branches of the service as they transfer out of the other branches 
into the Field Artillery. For efficiency the grades above that of cap- 
tain should probably be filled by promotion in the arm itself. 

Senator Warren. In transferring, you do not mean exchange; you 
mean taken out of one branch and put in another, and thereby open 
the way for promotion under them ? 

Col. Treat. Yes, sir. This should be authorized by law. 

Senator Warren. That is what I assumed you meant. 

Col. Treat. Asa business proposition I express that in a few words 
as follows: 

Where an abnormal increase is authorized in any one arm such thai regular promo- 
tion in that arm to fill new vacancies would involve advancement of officers too young 
and inexperienced to higher grades, efficiency and interest of ihe Government would 
be best conserved by filling a proportional part of the vacam ies by promotion in the 
arm itself and tilling the remaining vacancies by transfer, grade i'< r grade, fr< m other 
arms of officers determined suited to that branch by examination or otherwise and who 
desire such transfer. 

I also think it would be a very important part of the law to enact 
that in filling up from the bottom it be done by increment in 
order that }^ounger officers promoted may be properly digested. I 
know there will be a great deal of pressure brought to bear imme- 
diately to fill these vacancies all at once. That will result in having 
a great number of officers improperly instructed, and too many to 
properly handle and instruct, and it will also cause what the com- 
mittee, I imagine, had heard before, another ''hump" in promotion, 
a lot of people coming in at the same time, of about the same age. 

Senator Warren. You would extend this increase over a term of 
years ? 



EQUALIZATION" OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 37 

Col. Treat. Yes, sir. 

Senator Warren. That was done in the Coast Artillery, was it not, 
in the last increase? 

Col. Treat. I believe it was. 

Col. Davis. Five increments. 

Col. Treat. We tried that once before, Senator, when the Artillery 
Corps was incre >sed, to have five increments, but the pressure was so 
gre t that they removed it. 

Senator Warren. I alluded to the last one. 

Col. Treat. Yes, sir. 

Senator Warren. And that is being considered favorably by the 
committee. 

Col. Treat. Yes, sir; 1 think that is a business proposition; it 
should be. 

Senator du Pont. Colonel, when you speak of transfers from other 
branches of the service to fill up the original vacancies in the Field 
Artillery, if it should be increased, do you mean for those transfers to 
be made before the promotions are made, or after? 

Col. Treat. After the Field Artillery have their proportion of the 
promotions, because, having spent their lives in the Field Artillery, I 
consider that they are best fitted for the duty. Then the places below 
them can be filled by transfer from the other arms of the service. 

Senator du Pont. For instance, assuming that the officers of the 
Field Artillery would be increased by 50 per cent, you would go to 
work and ascertain the percentage of the officers in the Field Artillery 
as compared with the other arms of the service? 

Col. Treat. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. Then, whatever that percentage might be, you 
would promote those officers of the Field Artillery ? 

Col. Treat. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. Then you would allow your transfers to operate 
from other arms of the service? 

Col. Treat. That is exactly correct. 

Senator du Pont. 1 just wanted that understood. 

Col. Treat. As to the other question you asked me, Senator, about 
transferring officers from one branch to the other, having anything 
like a single list, 1 am satisfied that would not work in time of war, 
because some officer of Cavalry, Coast Artillery, or Infantry, who is 
senior might have to be promoted to some Field Artillery regiment — ■ 
perhaps in another part of the field — and it would be impossible and 
impracticable. Then I have also used the argument that in war 
the greatest number of casualties usually takes place in the Infantry 
arm of the service, and I believe if a whole regiment of Infantry is 
wiped out the officers of Infantry who have borne the brunt of that 
service are entitled to the promotions and not Artillery and Cavalry 
officers who may be sitting back, not being hurt. 

Senator Catron. That is in time of war. You could do many 
things in time of war that you can not do or should not do in time of 
peace. 

Col. Treat. But we can not change the law. 

Senator Fletcher. If the law says the other way, you can not 
do it. 

Col. Treat. It is disastrous to change methods, too, in time of 
war that have not been practiced in time of peace. 



38 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN TllK LINK OF THE AEMY. 

Senator Warren. Let us hope we are building the Army and 
carrying it along for peace — just the accident of war. 

Col. Treat. There is one other point I have not touched on about 
this reservoir of officers. No question has been asked me on that. 
That reservoir of detached officers will be utilized for instruction of 
militia, or whatever other troops are organized as an adjunct to the 
Regular Army. We will have to have cavalrymen, field artillery- 
men, infantrymen, and all classes of men. In the administration 
of the forces of the Regular Army we have to have certain specialists 
to act as inspectors. I believe that this reservoir could and should 
properly be used to equalize any inequality in promotion as much 
as consistent with the effieiency of the service. I believe a certain 
number of offices which have to be held by detached officers are of 
the nature that they have to be filled from a particular branch of 
the service. For instance, it would not do to have an inspector of 
Field Artillery a cavalryman, nor an inspector of Cavalry an infantry- 
man, nor an inspector of Coast Artillery an infantryman. A certain 
proportion of these detached officers, then, should be set apart to 
fill these duties which are essentially technical in their nature. Then 
the remaining proportion could be used as a reservoir to assist any 
branch of the service which lags a little bit in promotion, to the 
greatest extent. 

Senator Beckham. Colonel, will you prepare a provision such as 
you suggest to cover promotion and detached service and send it for 
inclusion in this record ? 

Col. Treat. Yes, sir; I shall be glad to do so. 

(The suggested provision is as follows:) 

When any arm or branch of the service is increased by law the promotion of officers 
to resulting vacandU s caused thereby cr by any authorized increment thereof shall be 
made in the arm itself, as already provided by law, provided that in case the increase 
or increment authorized is sr.cli that officers of the grade of lieutenant with less than 
eight years' length of commissioned service would be promoted to the grade of captain 
or higher grade the President is hereby empowered to fill vacancies caused in the 
several grades in that arm below the grade of major— first, by promotion in the arm 
itself of such proportion of officers as the total number of officers in the grade on the 
day preceding the authorized increase bears to the total number of officers of that 
grade in the Cavalry, Field Artillery, Infantry, and Coast Artillery on the same day, 
fractions of a whole number to be counted as a whole number in assigning said va- 
cancies; second, by transfer from the other arms of the service, grade for grade, of 
officers d< termined suitable and qualified by a board of officers of the arm to which 
the transfer is made, and provided that all increases shall be made in annual incre- 
ments not less than three nor more than five, as the President shall determine is for 
the best interests of the Government, except in case of war or imminence of war, 
when increases may be made as rapidly as the necessary personnel and material can 
lie trained or made available. 

Sec — . The list of line officers detached by the President from Cavalry, Field 
Artillery, Coast Artillery Corps, and Infantry for duly, the usual period of which 
exceeds one year, shall be limited to nine hundred and eighty-six officers, inclusive 
of the two hundred detached officers authorized by the act of Congress approved March 
third, nineteen hundred and eleven, and shall consist of officers in the grades of colonel 
to first lieutenant, inclusive. As nearly as practicable the number of officers detached 
from each grade shall be in proportion to the number in that grade authorized by law 
for the whole Army, exclusive of the additional officers authorized by the act of Con- 
gress approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven. Each vacancy in the 
line of the Army created or caused by the assignment of an officer of Cavalry, Field 
Ar'illery, Coast Artillery Corps, or Infantry to the list of detached officers shall be filled 
by promotion from the next lower grade in the arm of the service in which the officer 
thus detached holds a commission, according to seniority and subject to examination 
as now provided by law. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 39 

No officer shall be permitted to remain on said list of detached officers for a period 
of more than four years at any one time and a^'ter completion of a term of four years 
thereon an officer will not be eligible for detached sen ice until he shall have eerved 
two years with the arm of the service to which he belongs: Provided, That whenever 
an officer, by reason of having performed duty with troops for two of the preceding 
six years has become available for detached service, he may be detailed or continued 
on such detached service for a full period of four years. 

Whenever the duty to be performed by an officer on detached service is peculiar to 
the duties normally performed by a line officer of any of the four arms named above, 
the officer detached for such duty and placed in consequence thereof on the list of 
detached officers shall be from that arm of the line of the Army. 

"Whenever the duty to be performed by an officer on detached sen-ice is not pecu- 
liar to the duties normally performed by a line officer of any of the four arms named 
above, such vacancy shall be filled by the detail and assignment to said list of an 
officer of the same grade in the arm of the service to which the officer in the next 
lower grade belongs who is then the seni >r in rank of the officers of his grade in the 
four arms specified: Provided, That if under the operati >n of this section the number 
of officers returned to any particular arm of the service at any time exceeds the num- 
ber authorized by law in any grade, promotions to that grade in that arm of the service 
shall cease until the number has been reduced to the number authorized. 

Sec. — . line officers d'etai'ed to fill vacan< ies in the Adjutant General's Depart- 
ment, the Inspector General's Department, Quartermaster Corps, Sicnal Corps, ex- 
clusive of the aviation section, and the Bureau of Insular Affairs under section twenty- 
six of the act of Congress approved February second, nineteen hundred and one, 
shall be subject to the provL-ions of section twenty-seven of that art and shall be 
selected in each grade from the Cavalry, Field Artillery, Coasl Artillery Corps, and 
Infantry in such manner that the total number of officers detai ed from each grade of 
each of the arms named shall be as nearly as practicable, in the proportion which the 
number of officers of that arm in that grade, exclusive of additional ofhYers author- 
ized by the act of .March third, nineteeu hundred and eleven. ] lears to the total number 
of offi ers in that grade in the four arms named. 

< >i!i( ers sele ted for duty as members of the General Staff Corps of the Army under 
the act of Congress approved February eighteenth, nineteen hundred and three, 
shall be apportioned in such manner that each branch of the service shall be fairly 
and proportionally represented. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. EDWARD NATHANIEL JONES, GENERAL 
STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY. 

The Chairman. You have been here while we were discussing this 
proposed suggestion for the equalization of promotions. We would 
be glad to hear from you. 

Senator Catron. What is your arm of the service ? 

Maj. Jones. I belong to the Infantry. 

Senator du Pont. Have you always served in the Infantry ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. My ideas on the subject of this bill are 
contained in a report on the organization of the land forces of the 
United States for 191,2, on page 46. That was referred to by Col. 
Michie in his statement, so I hardly think it will be necessary for me 
to go into that. 

I would state to the committee that, as far as this bill for equalizing 
promotions, sent down by the Chief of Staff, is concerned, I fully 
agree with every proviso in that. In fact, I go further. I advocate 
a single list for all officers, and more especially starting in with second 
lieutenants. I have been inspected by officers of the Coast Artillery 
in the Inspector General's Department, very efficiently; by officers of 
Cavalry in the Inspector General's Department, and very efficiently. 
So I can not see any force in the argument that an officer can 
not learn something about the duties of the other branches of the 
service until he gets to the grade of brigadier general. We get a 
brigadier general and he is supposed to know the limitations and 



40 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION TN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

understand the functions of all arms and branches of the service. 
A great deal of the training of officers is common to all branches of 
the service, equipment, looking after the clothing, feeding, and health 
of the commands, and it is only a small part of the military train- 
ing which is so-called technical. 

Senator du Pont. Major, do you draw that same distinction which 
Col. Davis drew between the requirements of officers of the mobile 
Army and Coast Artillery ? He did not say so, but I presume he 
alluded to the more technical branches of the Coast Artillery, the 
firing, the laying of mines, and all those defensive operations, and 
particularly high-angle fire, and all that. Do you draw any distinc- 
tions between those technicalities and specialties of that arm, and 
the three arms that compose, the mobile Army ? 

Maj. Jones. There are some distinctions; yes, sir. The difference 
in the technical training, the fact that the Coast Artillery troops do 
not have as much practice in handling transportation. They have 
not the transportation problems that we would have in the mobile 
branches, and there would be considerable difference in the individual 
training of the individual enlisted men. Some of them would require 
very little training. Some require very high training. Whereas in 
an Infantry or Cavalry company they all would require practically 
the same amount of training, ad the rank and file. 

Senator du Pont. Do you think that the average line officer would 
be entirely equipped to examine the Const Artillery officers in refer- 
ence to problems of lire, and all that? 

Maj. Jones. I think he should acquire that knowledge in a very 
short time, in a much shorter time than a civilian would. 

Senator du Pont. I agree with you there. But he would have to 
acquire it? 

Maj. Jones. He would have to study the specialty of the arm, par- 
ticular arm or branch, undoubtedly. But I believe it would make 
more efficient general officers if our young officers could serve with all 
branches of the service. I think, as a matter of principle, that we 
certainly ought to be able to fix up some system of promotion which 
would operate as a principle and not for a special occasion, as Col. 
Davis referred to, and taking this bill section by section, section A 
provides: 

In each grade below that of brigadier general, in the land forces in the sen ice of 
the United State;, an officer's rank and pro edence and, in case of a, line officer, his 
eligibility to command, shall be determined by the length of his continuous service 
as a commissioned officer in the military service of the United States. 

I thoroughly agree with that principle. It continues: 

Provided, That in the case of any officer who now occupies, or who may hereafter 
occupy, an anomalous position in the lineal list of his arm which does not correspond 
to the length of his continuous commissioner! service, a date of precedence shall be 
assigned by the Fresident of the United States from which shall be calculated ths 
length of his constructive continuous commissioned service. The date so assigned 
shall be as nearly coincident with the actual date of commencement of his continuous 
commissioned service as may be consistent with his anomalous position in lineal 
rank in his own arm, corps, or department. 

That proviso is necessary because there is a considerable number 
of officers whose relative rank, or rank on the lineal list of their own 
arm or corps, does not correspond to the length of their continuous 
commissioned service. For example, the act of February 2, 1901, 
provided that officers who were commissioned under that law should 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 41 

receive credit for their services in the volunteers. Some officers who 
were already commissioned in the Army and had served in the volun- 
teers prior to the passage of that act got no credit for their volunteer 
service, and were immediately ranked by those who were appointed 
under the provisions of the act of February 2, 1901. That gives 
quite a number of officers who occupy anomalous positions, and some 
such proviso as that would be necessary in order to prevent upsetting 
the whole Army list. Section B provides the distribution of vacancies 
when any one arm is increased, and I believe provides a most efficient 
means of doing it, and one from which the service would get the most 
benefit. Section C provides that the detached officers' list, or the 
officers who are in addition to those required for service with organi- 
zations, would be used as a reservoii. I believe that list can be used 
as a reservoir. I have made considerable computations along that 
line at different tim.es, have made this a matter of study for several 
years. 

Senator Hitchcock. Will you please explain what you mean by 
usi ig that as a reservoir? 

Maj. Jones. The detached officers' list is a list of officers on duty 
witli Organized Militia, or other duty, for a period of about four years, 
who do not belong to a regiment of Infantry, for example, or a regi- 
ment of Cavalry, for example, or a particular organization of Coast 
Artillery, for example. They are detached from that list, and while 
they belong to the Infantry, Cavalry, or Coast Artillery, respectively, 
they are sent on this detached list as belonging to that branch, with- 
out belonging to any particular organization of that branch, and the 
law provides that when an officer is assigned to the detached officers' 
list he makes a vacancy. For instance, if you take a captain from 
Company A of the First Infantry aid put him on the detached list by 
the proper orders of the War Department, there would be a vacancy 
for a captain of Company A in the First Infantry, to which some first 
lieutenant would be promoted. 

To resume, I think the number of officers who would have to be 
assigned to that reservoir would be very small. It is making a 
mountain out of a mole hill. The tendency of the detached officers' 
list would be to equalize promotions, and the occasions for utilizing 
officers of Artillery to perform Infantry duties, or officers of Cavalry 
to perform Artillery duties, would be very small and almost insig- 
nificant. There are a great nia^y officers on the detached list whose 
duties do not especially relate to special duties, recruiting service, and so 
forth, and I think it could be easily worked out, as Gen. Carter stated, 
and somewhat along the lines headvocated. 

The memorandum that Col. Treat submitted, and in which he pro- 
vided for promotion by selection, is just another name for promotion 
by political pull. I hate to see that even discussed, personally, and 
the Army at large is almost a unit in opposition to it. I am satisfied 
that 1 am voicing the sentiments of the Army when I make that state- 
ment. 

Senator Hitchcock. Against what kind of promotion ? 

Maj. Jones. Promotion by selection, which I say is another name 
for promotion by political pull. We have not any confidence that 
selection would be done with fairness or justice. 

Senator Hitchcock. I have made up here a tabulated statement 
showing the proposed increase in officers. 



42 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE AEMY. 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. And I find, for instance, that it. is quite im- 
possible to have these promotions in the line of service: that is, thit 
there are not enough officers in these subordinate positions to fill 
the new positions to be made. 

M j. Jones. Xo. sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. Your idea is that they shouM be taken from 
one of the other lines of service ? 

Ms.j. Jones. Yes; get the benefit of the training they have had. 

Sen-tor Hitchcock. 1 rom which other branch '. Will there be 
some latitude there ( 

Mi j. Jones. I would put the officers on one list, personally, if 1 
h: d my way about it. and select the senior officer according to length 
of sen i e for promotion in any grade. 

Senator Hitchcock. That is, the officers of all these four branches 
of the service you would j ut on one list I 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. And rank them in seniority ( 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. And you would not even promote in the Field 
Artillery ■ s long as the officers lasted in that, but would you promote 
haphazard ? 

Maj. Jones. It would not be necessary, with the proviso in here 
that the officers should be assigned to their own branch of the service 
as far as practicable. I do not believe there would be a dozen 
officers of any one grade who could not be assigned to their own 
branch of the service. 

Senator du Pont. If you double the Field Artillery it would be 
inevitable, in making up a list of continuous-service men, that the 
promotions in the Field Artillery would go to Infantry, Cavalry, and 
Coast Artillery. Do you think that is a good thing for the service? 

Maj. Jones. The proviso in this bill would apportion those vacan- 
cies — the original vacancies — amongst the three arms in proportion 
to their commissioned strength as at present, as I understand it. 

Senator du Pont. I was not quite clear whether that bill took 
that in or not. 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. It is supposed to double, and perhaps more 
than double, the Field Artillery regiments? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. There are six Field Artillery regiments, and if 
you acid six there will be six lieutenant colonels to be promoted >. 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator du Pont. How many of those would you take from the 
present arm under this section 13 ? 

Maj. Jones. The proportion of colonels would have to be worked 
out. There are about 30 colonels of Infantry, about 15 of Cavalry, 
and 1 4 of Coast Artillery, and 6 of Field Artillery, and we would just- 
give them their proportionate part. 

Senator du Pont. Their proportionate part would be nil. In fact, 
the scheme of promoting would result in the new Field Artillery 
regiments being commanded by officers who never served with Field 
Artillery. I think that is a fatal defect in the scheme. 

Maj. Jones. That is simply a matter of mathematics. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ABMY. 43 

Senator du Pont. It is a matter ©f mathematics, but it is a prob- 
lem that can be worked out withdrtt referring to even pencil and 
paper. There are 30 regiments of Infantry, 15 of Cavalry, and 14 
of Artillery, which makes 59, and there are six vacancies to be filled. 

Maj. Jones. They will get less than one-ninth. 

Senator du Poxt. So that they would get none. 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. That is because you can not divide up one 
man. 

Senator du Pont. That, I think, is a concrete fatal objection to 
this plan. 

Maj. Jones. That would be true as regards the colonels and the 
lieutenant colonels, perhaps. 

Senator du Poxt. And they ought to be excepted, certainly, from 
this scheme. 

Senator Hitchcock. Why could not these promotions occur from 
the same branch as long as the supply lasted, and then come from 
the ranking officer or the senior officer in another branch ? 

Maj. Jones. Because I for one would not go into another branch 
under officers who have had several years less service than I have. 
I would not want to go in below them. 

Senator Hitchcock. It would be in the shape of a promotion if 
you went in. 

Maj. Jones. My chances would be much better if I stayed in my 
own branch, because all those younger officers would block me from 
getting any higher, except perhaps one grade. 

Senator Hitchcock. As I have it here, under this bill, which I 
think promotes entirely too fast because it makes too m.uch of an 
expansion of the Army, there will be added 175 first lieutenants in 
the Cavalry. To get those 175 lieutenants we can draw from 225 
second lieutenants. 

Maj. Joxes. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. So that is easy. When we come down to 
the Field Artillery, we add 216 first lieutenants, but we have only 
78 second lieutenants to draw from. 

Maj. Joxes. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. After they are drawn from, why is there any 
objection to drawing from the second lieutenants of Infantry or the 
second lieutenants of Cavalry ? 

Maj. Jones. There would be no objection if the second lieutenants 
of Cavalry or the second lieutenants of Infantry desired to transfer 
under those men in the Field Artillery who had had only about one 
year s service. We might get enough second lieutenants. 

Senator Beckham. They would be getting a promotion with the 
transfer, woidd they not? 

Maj. Joxes. Yes, sir: getting a promotion under younger men. 

Senator Beckham. Suppose a transfer, such as the Senator suggests 
from the Cavalry branch to the Field Artillery. This young officer 
in the Cavalry gets a promotion ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. You think that the fact that there is some- 
body in the branch that he goes into who has been in the service 
a little less time than he has would deter him from going ? 

Maj. Joxes. Yes, sir. 



44 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE AKMY. 

Senator Catron. Why should we take into consideration what 
the officer wants, if we are going to promote him? 

Maj. Jones. I think that anything that will make for content- 
ment or a sense of justice, when the officers feel that they have been 
treated justly, should be given consideration. I think it makes for 
efficiency. 

Senator Catron. But that is a matter of minor consideration. 

Senator Beckham. He would have his choice of staying in his own 
branch or being promoted by going in the other, would he not ? 

Maj. Joxes. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. He would not be compelled to take the 
promotion ? 

Maj. Jones. No, sir. 

Senator Catron. But he would take it. There would not be many 
who would refuse ? 

Maj. Jones. I for one would. 

Senator Catron. What is the difference bet ween this proposition 
here, that is, promoting them in the way this designates, and actually 
putting all officers on a list according to their grade or rank with each 
other, and when a vacancy occurs appointing the next man to it, 
regardless of whatever rank comes to him. Does it not all come 
to just that ? 

Maj. Jones. It does not quite, I think, Senator. This provides 
for putting them on one list at the time an increase occurs, and there- 
after they receive promotions in their own arm. 

Senator Catron. If that is a good way to do it, why not do it for 
all time, keep them that way? 

Maj. Jones. I stated that personally I was in favor of doing it for 
all time. 

Senator Catron. Why should we fall back into the old rut again? 

Maj. Jones. I stated that personally I was in favor of a single list. 

Senator Hitchcock. You and other officers might be in favor of 
that, but are we not legislating for the efficiency of the Army and not 
for the pleasure of officers ? And if we are legislating for the efficiency 
of the Army, should we not make the promotions along the line of 
the greatest knowledge of the men, and not according to the prefer- 
ence of the individuals ? 

Maj. Jones. I did not advocate promotion according to preference 
of individuals. I advocate a single list, because I believe it would 
make for an efficient Army. 

Senator Hitchcock. Some one says that might bring a Cavalry 
officer into an ArtiTery command and might bring an Infantry officer 
into a Cavalry command. 

Maj. Jones. I think it would broaden both officeis, give them a 
broader education. 

Senator Hitchcock. What is the custom in foreign countries ? 

Maj. Jones. I know very little except from reports that I have seen. 
The custom is generally to keep officers hi their own branches, and 
we have a law on our statute books now authorizing General Staff 
officers to be assigned with any branch. I believe that is carried out 
in foreign armies pretty generally, and I have also seen the statement 
that in the German Army, since this present war, they have promoted 
a good many cavalry officers to the infantry organizations. While 
they generally adhere to their own arm of the service, they are trans- 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE AEMY. 45 

ferred much more liberally from one branch to another than we do 
in our service. 

Senator Warren. We understand fully your view about what is 
the single list. 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Warren. Assuming that that can not be done — and it is 
not entirely clear that that can be done — then you are adhering 
absolutely to this proposed law as it comes from the staff to us? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir; as being an approach toward the single list. 

Senator Warren. You think that is the nearest that could be 
done toward the single list in equalizing ? 

Maj. Jones. That would be a question. 

Senator Warren. If you were Secretary of War, and this matter 
came up and there were no h g'slation, would there be anything to 
hinder your providing for transfers, providing they were willing to 
transfer, and how nearly would you affect this ? 

Maj. Jones. I do not think that has ever been done. 

Senator Warren. I am disposed to agree with you generally 
about that, but what I am getting at is, there never has been just 
this kind of legislation that we are now proposing, and whether 
there is any insurmountable difficulty in doing that way, providing 
we should find we are unable to adopt this scheme that is here pro- 
posed. I think we may as well lay aside the single-list proposition, 
from all I have heard. This thing is certainly debatable in a great 
many minds. If we can not do that, what is the next best way, 
and how can that next best way be done by simple legislation, or 
can it be done by the War Department itself in making these trans- 
fers ? We all agree that we must look to the efficiency of the Army. 
Next to that we want to conduce to the comfort and ambition and 
capabilities of the officers and men, and to do that, of course, if we 
double one arm and add nothing to the other, there has to be some- 
thing done to equalize it for efficiency. The question asked by 
Col. du Pont as to the Field Artillery demonstrates the difficulties 
that there are. 

Maj. Jones. I do not know, Senator, whether, as Secretary of 
War — I can not answer offhand — I would have the authority to 
transfer to original vacancies. 

Senator Warren. He does have the authority, and does do it. If 
you want to be transferred to another arm, he has the opportunity 
of approving your desire to be transferred. 

Maj. Jones. That is very true, but I can not answer offhand with- 
out looking the subject up as to whether the law for lineal promotions 
would not operate to prevent his doing that. What I mean is, I am 
not sufficiently familiar with the law just now to answer that question. 
I am inclined to think that the law for promotions might possibly 
operate against it. 

Senator Warren. When it is exercised now, it is usually exercised 
by exchange. 

Maj. Jones. Yes, mutual transfers. 

Senator Warren. But I think there have been transfers without 
that. I do not know but there might be danger of interference with 
the lineal promotions, but I want to get at your judgment on that. I 
see Gen. Carter has the book opened to some law. 



46 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

Gen. Carter. It specifies that promotions must be made in the 
Army subject to examination, according to seniority, from the lower 
grade. 

Senator Warren. That is promotion, but I am speaking of a trans- 
fer without promotion. 

Senator Beckham. I understand that there can be mutual trans- 
fers. 

Senator Warren. We know that is all right. 

Maj. Jones. As I understand, Senator Warren wants to know 
about transferring a captain of Infantry into an original vancancy in 
the Field Artillery, if the Field Artillery is increased. 

Gen. Carter. This fixes that. 

Hereafter all vacancies occurrirg in the Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry above the 
grade of second lieutenant shall, subject to the examination required by law, be filled 
by promotion according to seniority from the next lower grade in each arm. 

Senator Warren. That is for promotions. 

Gen. Carter. It says vacancies occurring. 

Maj. Jones. That was the law I had in mind when I hesitated 
about answering the question. 

Senator Warren. That is to shut off favoritism in leaving one 
arm and getting promotion when they can not get promotion in 
their own. 

Senator Catron. Are you a graduate of West Point? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Catron. You are educated in every branch of the service 
there ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir; to a certain extent. The education there, 
of course, is not complete. 

Senator Catron. I understand you have your preliminary educa- 
tion in every branch of the service ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes. 

Senator Catron. When an officer goes into the Army from civil 
life and is examined, do j-ou know the extent of the examination 
given him — whether it is in every branch of the service, just the same 
as a West Point graduate has to have ? 

Maj. Jones. It is not. 

Senator Catron. I am not speaking about the literary or mathe- 
matical points, but the points with reference to tactics, military dis- 
cipline and drill, and eveiythmg connected with the use of firearms. 

Maj. Jones. His examination is not. He has to have a general 
education. 

Senator Catron. He has to be equipped so that he will be com- 
petent to fill a place in any branch of the service, so far as his educa- 
tion is concerned? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Catron. In time of war it is very frequent that a com- 
mander as low as a colonel, or even less than that, is put in command 
of a station where he has to command Cavalry, Infantry, and Artillery 
all together. 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Cation". Do you think it would be a matter that was likely 
to be advantageous to him to have had the opportunity to serve in 
each branch of the service, in managing and controlling and carrying 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 47 

on what he has to do in his command, for the purposes for which it is 
given to him ? 

Maj. Jones. I do. 

Senator Catron. That is the idea you were getting at, is it ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Would there not be a relatively small number 
that would get the advantage of this training in more arms than one ? 

Maj. Jones, res, sir. 

The Chairman. Is not the purpose of this change rather for the 
promoting of an officer than to increase his efficiency ? 

Maj. Jones. It would operate both ways. There would be a rela- 
tively small number, but I think it would operate, to make officers 
keep up a little more with other branches of the service than at 
present. 

The Chairman. The purpose of this change, then, is not for 
efficiency or increased efficiency of the officers; it is rather for pro- 
motion purposes, is it not ? 

Maj. Jones. It is for equalizing promotions, which I believe would 
make for increased efficiency, and it would also have the advantage of 
allowing officers to serve with various branches of the service other 
than the one in which they entered. 

Senator Hitchcock, Is it not made very complicated % I am 
struggling to understand this thing, and I really can not got it through 
my head. Can it not be put in plainer English, and more to the 
point? 

Maj. Jones. Which section ? 

Senator Hitchcock. — The whole thing. I am now trying to find 
how this equalizes the promotions in the line of the Army. 

Maj. Jones. That, I think, you will find in the third section. 
You will find it in section B, the proviso that if any one arm is 
increased, the original vacancies, or, in other words, the vacancies 
made due to that increase, will be apportioned amongst all the arms 
named, Infantry, Cavalry, Field Artillery and Coast Artillery, in pro- 
portion to the number of officers who are now in those branches. 
In each grade that will occur, colonel, lieutenant colonel, major, 
captain, first lieutenant, and second lieutenant. That equalizes the 
amount of promotion that each branch gets due to its increase. 

Senator Hitchcock. Why go any further than that? I can 
understand that much. What is all the rest of it about ? 

Maj. Jones. The next section makes a reservoir of detached offi- 
cers, these officers who do not belong to organizations, but who 
are provided as extras, additional to those in the organizations, for 
the purpose of further tending to equalize promotions, and it pro- 
vides: [Reading:] 

"All details to fill both original and subsequent A'a r ancie3 in the detached officers' 
list, as these occur from time to time, shall hereafter be made from the Infantry, 
Cavalry, Field Artillery, and Cost Artillery Corps in ea^h grade, from that branch 
wherein the senior officer of the next lower grade has the longest continuous commis- 
sioned service. 

That would further tend to equalize promotions. For example, 
we take the senior lieutenant colonel, the senior lieutenant colonel 
of Infantry in the commissioned service dates from 1883; of Cav- 
alry, from* 1882; of Field Artillery, from 1886; of Coast Artillery, 
from 1888. If it became necessary to detach an officer or put him 



48 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

on the detached list, we would take a colonel of Cavalry, because the 
senior lieuten; ; t colonel of Cavalry has the longest continuous com- 
missioned service, and by detaching a colonel of Cavalry it would 
make a vacancy to which you could promote a lieutenant colonel. 
If we took the colonel from tin 1 Ninth Cavalry and put him on the 
detached list, the senior lieutenant colonel of Cavalry would be pro- 
moted to the Ninth Cavalry. 

Senator Catrox. How would vou fill the lieutenant colonel's 
place ? 

Maj. Joxes. It would be filled b) 7 the senior major. 

Senator Hitchcock. Why detach him ? Why can you not appoint 
him without detaching him ? 

Maj. Jones. I think the trouble is that you do not exactly appre- 
ciate what the detached list is. There are a certain number of officers 
necessary in a company of Infantry. For example, the captain and 
the first and second lieutenants. If we took one of those away and 
put him on detached service, we would leave that organization with- 
out an officer. Suppose we take a first lieutenant of an Infantry 
company and send him on a college detail. That company is with- 
out a first lieutenant unless that officer sent on college detail is placed 
on the detached list; that is, he is detached from the company. It 
means he is not serving with troops, but is on a special iist author- 
ized by Congress. This makes a vacancy in the company which can 
be filled by the promotion of a second lieutenant. 

Senaior Hitchcock. Why is he put on that list? 

Maj. Joxes. That is just the name of the list, more than anything 
else. 

Senator Hitchcock. Why is it done ? 

Maj. Jones. It is done so that the companies and regiments will 
have their complement of officers, so that the troops will have their 
officers. 

Senator Warren. To go to the schools of the country. 

Senator Hitchcock. You say you have a captain there ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. And you put that captain on the detached 
list. Is that for the purpose of enabling somebody below to get a 
promotion? 

Maj. Jones. If you consider the detached list as a similar thing 
to The Adjutant General's Department you put him in another outfit; 
you take him away from his regiment. 

Senator Hitchcock. Do you do that regardless of whether there is 
any work for him to do or not ? 

Maj. Jones. No, sir. The law provides that they shall have duty 
with Organized Militia, or on other details, the period of which 
usually exceeds one year; that there shall be 200 officers in addition 
to those necessary. The law at present limits it. 

Senator Hitchcock. Detailed officers ? 

Maj. Jones. They are called detached officers, and belong on the 
detached list, just like the officers in the Juelge Advocate General's 
Department belong to that de'pirtment. 

Senator" Hitchcock. Do you mean there must be a maximum of 
200, or a minimum ? 

Maj. Jones. It must be just 200. 

Senator du Pont. That is what the law allows. 



EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE AEMY. 49 

Senator Hitchcock. There are 200 whether there is anything for 
them to do or not ? 

Maj. Jones. There are a great many more officers on detached duty 
than on that list. 

Senator Catron. Two hundred whose places are filled ? 

Maj. Jones. Two hundred whose places are filled. 

Senator Hitchcock. I do not think there is a clear idea on this, 
to my mind, and I doubt whether there is on the part of some of the 
rest of you. This is a detached list of 200 men ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir; provided by special act of Congress. 

Senator Hitchcock. It does not embrace all of the officers on 
detached duty ? 

Maj. Jones. No, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. Why are they put on this fist? 

Maj. Jones. Because Congress provided a list, and said 200 officers 
should be put on it. 

Maj. Jones. Because Congress provided a fist, and said 200 officers 
should be put on it. 

Senator Hitchcock. Then why did Congress provide this super- 
numerary list ? 

Senator Warren. That particular 200 was to cover the schools 
of the country, as well as the others. 

Senator Hitchcock. But it does not embrace everything. I want 
to know why it is they keep this 200 list. 

Maj. Jones. Because Congress did not provide that all officers 
detached, away from troops, should go on that list. 

Senator du Pont. They asked for 612 officers, and Congress cut 
them down to 200. 

Maj. Jones. We had 612 actually away from troops, and Congress 
authorized 200 extra officers. 

Senator Hitchcock. Which evidently has something to do with 
the promotions. Will you just show me the connection between this 
list of 200 detached officers and the scheme of promotions ? 

Maj. Jones. If you notice, after each officer's name here there is 
"Infantry" or ''Cavalry" of "Field Artillery" or "Coast Artillery." 
The number of officers of Infantry amongst these colonels is, under 
the present scheme, constant. .When one of these colonels of Infantry 
is taken and assigned to a regiment, there is another colonel of Infantry 
to take his place here, or if a colonel of Infantry is placed on the 
retired list, the senior lieutenant colonel of Infantry takes his place 
on the detached list. 

Senator Hitchcock. I see that, but I do not see the motive. 

Maj. Jones. It is just another organization, just like the Adju- 
tant General's Department or the Judge Advocate General's Depart- 
ment. There are just 200 officers, and under the law they are dis- 
tributed through the different branches in a proportion which the 
officers of the different branches bear to one another. 

Senator Catron. They are not, then, used to equalize promotions 
according to that, are they ? 

Maj. Jones. The list now is not used for that purpose; no, sir; but 
the object of this bill was to utilize that list for this purpose. I think 
it may make it clear to you to state that there are just 200 officers 
that Congress authorized over and above those necessary to run the 

29936—16 4 



50 EQUALIZATION OF PROMOTION IN THE LINE OF THE ARMY. 

Army, some of them on college duty, some on school duty, some 
on recruiting duty, and so forth, away from troops. I myself am 
on the detached list. I am on the general staff. They are on various 
duties throughout the country. There are more than 200 officers on 
duty awa} T from troops, but 200 are all that Congress gave us, so that 
there are many companies now that are without officers with them, 
and many regiments that are short of officers — that is, the full com- 
plement. 

Senator Catron. Take this proposition: For instance, a major 
in Coast Artillery and a major in Infantry, and a major of Coast 
Artillery has probably been promoted much more rapidly than the 
major of Infantry. If a man has been detached from the Infantry 
on this detail, they do not promote from the Light Artillery Corps, but 
they promote from the Cavalry somebody else, so as to equalize the 
amount of promotions so that they may get ahead as fast as they do 
in the Coast Artillery. Is that the idea ? 

Maj. Jones. That is the idea of this bill; yes, sir. 

Senator Catron. So that the idea is to use that detached service 
in that way? 

Maj. Jones. To use this detached service in that way, to tend to 
keep it equal, use it as a balance wheel, a flywheel. 

Senator Catron. Although the Coast Artillery major might be 
older than the Cavalry major, still the Cavalry major would be pro- 
moted because that would make room for the promotion of another 
in the Cavalry, because they have not had as much promotion as 
they have had in the Coast Artillery. That is the theory, is it ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes. 

Senator Warren. That I understand. You stand for one general 
list if you can get it. If you can not get it, you stand for this report 
from the General Staff, and if you can not get that, you stand for 
some mode of transfers which will overcome this difficulty ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

Senator Warren. And if the present law does not provide for it, 
we ought to provide for it in some way ? 

Maj. Jones. Yes, sir. 

(Thereupon, at 5.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.) 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 398 700 5 



